Community Policing as a Public Policy : Challenges and Recommendations [1 ed.] 9781443870184, 9781443859530

Citation preview

Community Policing as a Public Policy

Satyajit Mohanty, Additional Director General of Police, belongs to the Indian Police Service. In a career spanning over twenty five years, he has served as police chief in four districts and as Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General in three ranges in Odisha. He holds a Master of Science and a Law degree from Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, a Master’s degree in Human Rights from Pondicherry University, and a Management and Public Policy degree from IIM Bangalore and Syracuse University, New York, USA. He is a member of the National Police Mission, and has been active in formulating sound policy proposals on community policing. He has authored four books on various professional subjects, and can be visited at http://satyajitmohantyips.blogspot.in. Rabindra Kumar Mohanty is from the Odisha Education Service and has been teaching Sociology in undergraduate and post-graduate courses in the Universities in Odisha and in the State Police Academy, Odisha, for more than twenty-five years. He holds a Master’s degree in Sociology from JNU, New Delhi, and a PhD from the Institute of Advanced Studies, Meerut, UP, with pre-PhD formalities from IIT Kanpur. As a Commonwealth Fellow, he completed a Post-doctorate degree from the University of Nottingham, UK. He has authored four books, and has published several articles in national and international journals. He acts as a consultant to World Vision International, UNDP, WFP, Action Aid and DFID. He can be visited at http://rabisir.wordpress.com.

Community Policing as a Public Policy: Challenges and Recommendations

By

Satyajit Mohanty and Rabindra K Mohanty

Community Policing as a Public Policy: Challenges and Recommendations, by Satyajit Mohanty and Rabindra K Mohanty This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Satyajit Mohanty and Rabindra K Mohanty All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5953-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5953-0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables & Boxes List of Figures List of Abbreviations Foreword Acknowledgements Introduction

Page vii viii ix xi xvi 1

Chapter One

Explaining Community Policing Definitions and Features Criticism of Community Policing Theories of Community Policing

Chapter Two

Community Policing as Public Policy 39 Policy Processes, Components and Phases Theories on Public Policy Community Policing from Public Policy Perspective Why Should Community Policing be Introduced as a Public Policy?

Chapter Three Global Perspectives on Community policing Development of the Concept The United States of America The United Kingdom Brazil South Africa Singapore The “Koban” of Japan Australia Canada Belgium France Germany Sweden India

6

65

vi

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Chapter Four

Community Policing Initiative 105 of an Indian State Research Gap and Rationale for the Present Study Objectives of the Study Research Design Features of Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP) JSP : Pilot to State-wide Implementation

Chapter Five

Critical Study Outcomes and Findings The Journey of Community Policing as a Policy Process in Kerala Data Interpretation Community Policing: Theories and Praxis

131

Chapter Six

Summary and Recommendations Triangulation of Theories and Praxis Policy Context-Process-Outcome Matrix Challenges Recommendations

176

Appendixes References Subject Index Author Index

202 256 271 277

LIST OF TABLES & BOXES Table No. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3

Differences between Traditional Policing and Community Policing Differences between CP and PCR Problem Oriented Policing v. Social Resource Theory Traditional CP Orientation v. Traditional SRT Orientation Megadigm Shift for Reinventing the Police Comparative study of Allison’s & Elmore’s Models Wilson Matrix District-wise Population in Kerala Human Development Indices of Kerala vis-a-vis other Major States in India Civil police per lakh of population and per 100 sq. km of area Janamaithri Suraksha Project - Implementation Pre-implementation Phase: Theoretical Triangulation Implementation Phase - Theoretical Triangulation Impact Phase - Theoretical Triangulation

Page 11 28 32 33 38 50 52 111 112 113 119 173 174 175

Box No.

Page

3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

98 109 132 135 143 145 165

The Seven Directives in a Nutshell Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle Recommendations of Accountability Commission Launching of the JSP Vanitha Jagaran Samithi Diary of Nodal Officer Case Study

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1.1 2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 6.1

Page

The Theory of Innovation: M S Morabito

26

Simon’s Bounded Rationality Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle District Map of Kerala Organizational Hierarchy of Police Executives in Kerala Structure of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project Hutter-Hennink’s Qualitative Research Pyramid Community Policing : Context, Process & Outcome Matrix

47 108 110 113 115 123 191

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

ASI-Assistant Sub Inspector BO-Beat Officer BPO-Beat Police Officer BPR&D- Bureau of Police Research and Development, New Delhi CAPAM-The Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management CATCH-Combined Action Against Thieves, Cheats and Hooligans CLG-Community Liaison Group COP-Community-oriented policing COPP-Community-Oriented Policing Project COPS-Community Oriented Policing Service CP-Community policing CPDC-Community Policing Department Centre CPI-Communist Party of India CPO-Central Police Organisation CPO-Community Police Officer CPOP-Community Patrol Officer Program CPRC-Community Policing Resource Centres in Punjab CSV-Center for the Study of Violence DGP-Director General of Police FGD-Focus Group Discussion FoP-The Friends of Police Tamilnadu GB-Great Britain GOs-Government Order IACP-International Association of Chiefs of Police, USA ICHRP-International Council on Human Rights Policy ICPA-International Community Policing Awards IDC-Intelligence, Design, Choice IDI-In-depth Interview IIAP-International Innovations Awards Program IIMB-Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore IPS-Indian Police Service ISO-International Standard Organization JSP-Janamaithri Surakhya Project JSPP-Japan-Singapore Partnership Programme JSS-Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi KSPA-Kerala State Police Academy LDF-Left Democratic Front

x

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

M.L.A-Member of Legislative Assembly MHA-Ministry of Home Affairs MM-Micro Mission MM-01-Human Resource Development. MM-02-Community Policing MM-03-Communication and Technology MM-04- Infrastructure MM-05-New Processes (Process Engineering) MM-06-Proactive Policing and visualizing the future challenges MSD-Mahila & Sishu Desk’ of Odisha Police NPC-National Police Commission NPCs-Neighbourhood Police Centres NPM-National Police Mission NPP-Neighbourhood Police Post NSC-National Security Commission ONAM-Harvest Festival of Kearala PADC-Police Act Drafting Committee PCAs-Police Complaint Authorities PCO-Police Circular Order PCP-Police Community Partnership, PCR-Police Community Relations PCSOs-Police Community Support Officers PIB-Press Information Bureau PIL-Public Interest Litigation POP-Problem Oriented Policing POs-Police Order RCPI-Regional Community Policing Institute RPB-Residential Police Box SARA-Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment SI-Sub Inspector SOPs-Standard Operating Procedures SO-Senior Police Officers SRT-Social Resource Theory SWOT-Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat analysis UDF-United Democratic Front UK-United Kingdom UNDOC-United Nations Office on Drug and Crime UN-United Nations US-United States UTs-Union Territories. VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti. WTC-World Trade Center

James J. Chriss Professor Department of Sociology & Criminology Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115 [email protected]

FOREWORD As Max Weber (1947) argued long ago, the master trend of modernity is specialization in the division of labor and across society more generally. One area of professional work that is growing into an increasingly specialized subfield across sociology, criminology, political science, economics, history, and psychology is policing. The study of policing has grown not only because of increasing interest among university-trained scholars from a variety of fields, but also because of the push toward higher education and the attainment of advanced degrees among law enforcement practitioners themselves. At the beginning of the twentieth century August Vollmer believed that policing represented a set of specialized skills that could be taught and which required the recruitment of educated persons of good character who collectively would constitute this newly forming profession (Chriss 2013a). Later police sociologist Egon Bittner (1970) declared that the early vision of Vollmer was slowly being realized, and even went on to predict that policing would someday become a specialized social science of and for itself. That specialized subfield is being formed right now, and it is called Police Studies. Even though police scholars—coming from the ranks of both academia and the professional world of policing itself—are settling on a handful of first principles representing the best knowledge and practices of modern policing, it must be noted that the vast majority of such principles have been generated within the context of western—that is, American and European—society. This reflects the complexity of the social world and of the initial and scope conditions underlying all our work. The attempt to derive a set of universal principles about how some area of the social world works may have to contend with the fact that the scientific observations and inferences giving rise to these principles were never tested—or tested inadequately—in relation to global or multicultural settings. Think about

xii

FOREWORD

all the complexity that is introduced when one tackles policing as a topic and the various analytical levels (micro, meso, or macro) which are possible within that study. Not only are there conceptual nestings, such as understanding policing as merely one subsystem of a broader criminal justice system, there are also empirical and historical realities which must be taken into account in the matter of place, location, characteristics and culture of the population being served, and so on. Sociologists have long been aware of taking into account the great diversity of antecedent factors giving rise to any phenomena deemed worthy of study by them. The authors of the book for which I am privileged to write this forward, Satyajit Mohanty and Rabrinda K. Mohanty, are exemplars of the sociological movement in general and of methodological triangulation in particular. Together they combine practical understandings of the workings of policing with a theoretical acumen dedicated to explaining key aspects of police practice and organization. In my book on social control I was covering the history of professional policing, explaining how Robert Peel was the central figure in formulating the Metropolitan Police Act and getting it passed into law in London in 1829 (Chriss 2013b, pp. 117-118). I also briefly covered a backstory to the establishment of the “new police” which involved Peel’s activities beginning more than a decade prior. Acting as Chief Secretary of Ireland in 1812, Peel established the Peace Preservation Force to combat agrarian violence arising from inadequate rural law enforcement in Ireland (which was magistrate-based). Peel gave his enforcement officers wide discretion to dispense harsh physical coercion wherever opposition was met. For purposes of my social control book, this is where the backstory ended. Yet these events are connected to a larger story about the beginnings of state policing in India of which, at the time, I was unaware. Das and Verma (2003, pp. 128-133) argue that Peel’s earlier excursion into policing in the guise of the Irish Peace Preservation Force was actually a product of British colonialism, first arising in Ireland as the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). As opposed to the more “civil” form of professional policing that emerged in London in 1829—for example, officers were not issued service revolvers and were also sent to patrol areas where they were already wellknown by the residents to calm fears of an emerging, faceless police state— the Royal Irish Constabulary is described as a “garrisoned body of military police” which initially emerged during a time when Ireland was “in a state of strife and disorder, bordering on a state of war.” Writing more than a hundred years after its establishment, Sullivan (1914, p. 876) goes on to describe the RIC as a “soreness” whose “unnecessary oppression and cruelty still lingers in the memories of the people.”

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

xiii

Das and Verma (2003) explain that this early development of harsh policing in Ireland was basically the same form of policing established in India by British colonial authorities somewhat later. Colonial-based policing is more concerned with the maintenance of order during periods of perceived or real unrest, while the later “professional” model of policing is primarily geared toward the prevention and detection of crime. As Michael Banton (1964) observed, police organized under the colonial model may be described as “order police,” whereas traditional policing is best described as “law police.” The emergence of community policing is merely one example within a long line of thinking, perhaps starting with Kant and his notion of perpetual peace, that over time, through the course of the development of the human race, humanity would slowly move toward enlightenment with the ascendancy of the higher powers of human reasoning, and away from the raw and savage fight for survival which marked our ancient beginnings. Much of the history of the development of policing as a social institution across Western society seems to have moved in the same direction. In the earliest political spoils era (1830s to 1920s), policing was seen as a bluecollar craft where all that was needed to become a police officer was the right political connections and the ability to use force if needed to subdue the undesirables among the teeming masses of the newly burgeoning urban metropolis. By the second era of reform and early professionalization (1920s to 1960s) with groundwork being laid by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and August Vollmer, police attempted to professionalize their ranks through specialization. The third era of policing, running from 1970s to the present, is known as community-oriented or problem-oriented policing that emerged out of the social transitions of the 1960s. Police organizations attempted to reach out to the citizenry, to invite them into a collaborative effort to fight not only crime—indeed, during this era the image of police as crime fighters would be underplayed—but even more importantly the many social problems creating the conditions which were making citizens’ lives increasingly difficult. Mastrofski (1998, pp. 162-166) argues that community policing can be distilled down to four fundamental themes; debureaucratization, professionalization, democratization, and service integration. Early in its history municipal policing adopted a quasi-military, bureaucratic model of organisation which emphasized political control (especially in the first, political-spoils era), rules, strict adherence to proper communication and a chain of command, centralization (such as command-control imperatives emanating from police headquarters) and specialization (especially

xiv

FOREWORD

beginning in the second era of policing). By the 1970s and the emergence of the community policing era, there was a feeling that the legal and technical requirements of the old bureaucratic model of policing should give way to a more humanistic and debureaucratized organisational model. Rather than being distant from the citizens and coldly efficient ‘snappy bureaucrats’ (Klockars, 1980) specializing in crime control, police are now expected to work side by side with citizens and other stakeholders to solve community problems collectively. Professionalization came by way of increasing the educational requirements of police recruits, and training of officers in newest technologies as well as in vagaries of human behaviour. Community policing could be described as a sort of democratic policing to the extent that there is an explicit attempt to get citizens more involved in the day-to-day operations of the police department. A fourth theme of community policing is service integration. More than ever, police have developed organizational linkages not only with the other city safety forces, but also with schools, social service agencies, housing services, business and colleges and universities in the local area (Chriss 2013a: 38-39). With its emphasis on human relations and a more sophisticated approach to problem-solving, including more cross-fertilization between policing and the social sciences (e.g., the SARA method and Compstat), community policing has been positioned for a while now to make good its goal of creating meaningful collaborations between police and the citizens they serve. Studies of the effectiveness of community policing have been growing in both number and sophistication, and policy initiatives are emerging regarding best practices. The present study by Mohanty and Mohanty is an example of this trend toward policy-based analyses of community policing, here, of course, within the context of Indian society. More recent amendments to the Indian Police Act as embodied in the Report of the National Police Commission (1977-1981) appear promising as a way of overcoming the difficult conditions of the Colonial underpinnings of Indian policing toward a more humane and perhaps even emancipatory system of policing. Like others who have studied the implementation of community policing, Mohanty and Mohanty find uneven application of community policing in India due to such things as lack of institutional support, ambiguities concerning applicability of current legal frameworks, and the massive diversity of ways community policing is understood by planners and implementers in local settings. Most of the previous studies of community policing implementation have been more descriptive than grounded in solid research concerning how and what practitioners are doing on the ground. The qualitative methods employed by the authors, including focus group

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

xv

discussions with key stakeholders across communities and within the various police agencies, help our understanding of how police personnel make policy decisions or deal with obstacles standing in the way of implementation. The authors developed a context-process-outcome matrix for understanding how and under what conditions community policing is being implemented in India. Out of this conceptual triangulation, the authors have developed a number of recommendations for facilitating community police implementation, including greater political support; building trust between police agencies and community stakeholders; the development of guidelines for recruitment and training of community police officers; formulation of standard operating procedures for best practices with regard to community policing; the importance of internal marketing; and strategic planning. Finally, Mohanty and Mohanty emphasize the importance of understanding the role of police in modern democracies, to the extent that police cannot impose order on the community unilaterally, but must strive to gain legitimacy from the members of the community they serve. With this firmly in mind, Mohanty and Mohanty add to our understanding of how diverse cultural contexts and national identities and histories—including those forged within a colonial past—either facilitate or hinder the type of collaborative work that has been at the heart of community policing from the beginning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, co-author of this book for walking the journey together and keeping constant company in our collaborative efforts of writing books; this being the third one. I am grateful to my teachers at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore who saw me through the original thesis that became the basis of this book: to Prof. Geeta Sen and Prof. Anil B Suraj for giving me guidance, encouragement and creative momentum, to Prof. Vasanthi Srinivasan for making me understand the nuances of qualitative research methodology which I used as a tool for this study, to Prof. G.Ramesh for constant support and encouragement in my journey of “thesis” writing. My gratitude is due to Mr Jacob Punnoose, former Police Chief, Kerala and Mrs B. Sandhya, my batch mate from Kerala, for providing all the logistics support during my field study in Kerala. I am thankful to the officers and men of Kerala police, the members of Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi and Vanitha Jagaran Samithi all of whom spared valuable time to share their experiences with me, enabling me to collect rich and insightful textual data for the research. I am grateful to Prof. James Chriss for kindly agreeing to write the foreword of the book; to Prof. Larry D. Schroeder and Mr. Sankar Sen for their words of encouragements. I would like to thank Anish Alok Mohanty, student of National Law School of India University, Bangalore for his painstaking efforts in editing the manuscript. I owe an especially large debt to my wife, Lisa and son, Adhish, who stood by me ungrudgingly and gave me the support I needed to touch the finishing line. Last and not the least: I am grateful to IIM, Bangalore, Maxwell School of Public Policy, Syracuse (NY), Odisha Police, members of MicroMission-II of National Police Mission and Bureau of Police Research & Development, New Delhi for providing me the platform to write this book.

Satyajit Mohanty

INTRODUCTION Community policing, as an alternative policing strategy, revolves around the principle of pro-active policing, through people-friendly policing practices, community participation and problem solving, leading to crime prevention, maintenance of order and improvement in the overall quality of life in their neighbourhood. Community policing allows the law enforcement agency to get back to the principles upon which it was founded and to integrate itself into the fabric of the community so that the people and the police collaborate even before a serious problem arises. To state it succinctly, community policing is a useful, holistic and proactive concept and a tool to transform the police’s image, strengthen the police force and create attitudinal changes both within the force and amongst the public. In its strategic dimension, it contributes to the individual, the state and national health and as such reduces social pathology. Community policing provides decentralised, personalised policing services to the community. It recognises that the police cannot impose order on the community from the outside, but that people must be encouraged to think of the police as a resource that they can use in helping to solve contemporary community concerns (Trjanowicz Bucqueroux, 1990). It is not a tactic to be applied and then abandoned, but a new philosophy and organisational strategy that provides the flexibility to meet local needs and priorities as they change over time. To implement true community policing, the police department creates and develops a new breed of line officer who acts as a direct link between the police and the people in the community. The community policing officer’s broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law-abiding people in the community, so that together they can explore creative new solutions to local concerns, with private citizens serving as supporters and volunteers. As the community’s ombudsman, the community policing officer also acts as a link to other public and private agencies that can help in a given situation (Bucqueroux, Trjanowicz 1998) Community policing is the need of the day and police forces in democracies around the world are realising its utility and implementing community policing initiatives in varied forms. As an innovation in the police organisation and philosophy, community policing has assumed centre stage (Choudhary, 2009). From the United Kingdom to the United States of America, Brazil to Bangladesh, Singapore to South Africa and Japan to Jamaica, countries adopt various forms of community policing with the

2

INTRODUCTION

core philosophy remaining universal. The benefits of community policing are broken down into three areas for the sake of brevity such as Communityspecific benefits, Police-specific benefits and Shared benefits. To be more specific, Community-specific benefits include identification and resolution of community concerns, ownership of local problems, improved local physical and social environment and reduced fear of crime. Police-specific benefits include an improved police-community relationship, positive attitudes towards the police, a community perception of police “legitimacy” and most importantly, an increase in the job satisfaction of police offers. The international and national best practices exhibit certain shared benefits such as a decreased potential for police-citizen conflict, a reduction in crime rates and a better flow of information between the police and community (Segrave and Ratcliffe 2004). India inherited a colonial police force at the time of independence, whose mission and vision statements were drafted by the colonial rulers in the nineteenth century. The provisions of the old Police Act of 1861 are rendered redundant and archaic in a constitutional democracy where the authority of the people is supreme. However, despite the absence of any provision in the Act, the State and in many instances, the police leadership have embarked upon pro-active community-oriented policing initiatives making the police sensitive to the needs of the community. In the absence of an institutional and legal framework, many brilliant initiatives failed to stand the test of time. The community policing initiatives by most of the State and Union Territory governments were “informal policy processes” that should have been backed by “due process” policy. By “due process”, what is meant is that community policing practices should have been part of the police mission statement duly recognised in the Act and laws governing the police department. Of late, states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan have encoded the vision of community oriented policing in their newly legislated state Police Acts. Kerala is one state that has launched its community policing scheme, “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” (JSP), with the requisite legal and institutional framework for the initiatives to survive the incumbent executive and political leadership as a public policy. The “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, the flagship community policing scheme of Kerala Police, was conceptualised in the year 2005, when the United Development Front (UDF) government was in power, launched in the year 2008 by the rival Left Development Front government and now consolidated under the patronage of the UDF government again. It has weathered various “political streams”, survived the “successor-predecessor syndrome” and gained public acceptance. This study examines the benefits

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

3

accrued to the police organisation, to the community and the shared benefits after studying the JSP, the overarching community policing programme of the Kerala Police and the policy processes it encountered during the preimplementation, implementation and consolidation phases. The study was constructed around the need to go into the complex dynamics of community policing in India and to work out an integrated approach to contextualise theories and praxis using qualitative research techniques so as to come out with a context-process-outcome framework for the guidance of the policy makers and implementers. Accordingly, the book consists of six chapters. The first chapter presents a general outline of the concept, characteristics and constraints of community policing. Research on community policing has been the subject matter of considerable interest amongst criminologists, sociologists, police executives, legal experts and sponsoring agencies in the recent past, with a number of them having come out with a remarkable range of research work. The chapter also looks at the findings of those studies along their theoretical, methodological and substantive aspects. The second chapter deals with the different aspects of public policy. In general parlance, public policy is understood as a system of lawful principles, regulatory measures, priority courses of action, and funding options relating to a given issue of mass concern promulgated by a governmental entity or its implementing agency. Public policy is an initiative by a government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, and actions pertinent to the problem at hand. The chapter aims to justify why community policing should be introduced as a public policy instead of being left to the whims and fancies of the incumbent officer. Community policing is arguably the single most extended paradigm in policing that can be found in one form or another in the official discourse of a majority of policing agencies in the world today. Its use as the description of either current operations or the goal of reforms is almost universal. Representatives from countries as diverse as Australia, Belgium, China, Russia, India, Ukraine and Zimbabwe all indicated that community policing was central to their future operating philosophy at the 2007 International Police Executives Symposium in Dubai. The aspirations of achieving some form of community policing are common to a wide range of countries and despite the acknowledged limitations, it continues to be a moral touchstone that will continue to determine the future of policing. The third chapter examines how the community policing paradigm is implemented in a few select countries and policing cultures, and analyses the similarities and differences in their applications and the process of institutionalisation of the philosophy.

4

INTRODUCTION

The fourth chapter sets forth the objectives of the field study and methodologies of a community policing initiative, “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” (JSP) of an Indian state, Kerala. The objectives of JSP are prevention of crime, furthering co-operation between the police and the community and security-related mutual co-operation among citizenry. The JSP is a threetier structure with the Beat/Community Police Officer at the bottom, the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi (JSS), the council of local representatives, in the middle and the District Advisory Committee at the top. This study represents an exploratory-cum-descriptive research design using qualitative methodology. The population of this study includes all the stakeholders of JSP in the state of Kerala. The stakeholders include senior police officers, uniformed community police officers, and members of the JSS, Vanitha Jagaran Samithi, a self-help group consisting of women, established with the sponsorship of the local police. We have employed multi-stage purposive sampling for the study. The qualitative techniques for the purpose of collection of primary data included field ethnography, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, observation and case studies. The secondary data included available books, papers and reviews published in scholarly journals, documents, reports, publications of various organisations and paper clippings collected from various libraries in the country and the library of the Maxwell School of Public Policy in the United States. Search engines and blogs have also been of profound help. The journey of Janamaithri as a policy process has been divided into three stages and accordingly the categories or the parameters were consolidated under three major heads: pre-implementation dynamics, implementation phase and the impact phase. The policy parameters or categories under different phases of this community policing intervention have been conceptualised after the deductive and inductive elements of analysis. The Pre-implementation Phase and Implementation Phase have seven parameters each and the Impact Phase comprises six parameters. In the fifth chapter, we have shown how far the codes developed from the qualitative textual data conform to categories under three different phases, i.e., Pre-implementation, Implementation and Impact phases. The analysis aims at developing a theory by undertaking the core analytical tasks of description, comparison, categorization and conceptualization, as the critical outcome of the research. The verbatim transcript and translation of the interviews and focus group discussions form the basis of textual data in this study, from which codes were developed. Codes are essentially topics discussed by participants and identified through reading data. On the basis of the codes from the textual data, comparison, categorisation and

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

5

conceptualisation (linking categories) of the data have been undertaken, moving the analysis to a higher level of abstraction and providing the building blocks for theory development. A matrix of theories and policy praxis has been attempted under each phase, which has paved the way for developing a Context-Process-Outcome Model as an outcome of this study. It is, however, worth tracing the long preparatory journey of the JSP before it gained approval as a major public policy. Besides, in this chapter, we have traced out the journey of JSP as a policy process in order to link the theories with praxis that have been validated during field study. In the sixth chapter, we have attempted to summarise the discussions and to put forth the findings and recommendations. After having articulated the key findings in the preceding chapter, a Model has been conceptualised by triangulating the theories and praxis and organising them in a ContextProcess-Outcome framework in respect of pre-implementation, implementation and impact phases to serve as guidelines for both the policy makers and implementers in their efforts to introduce community policing as a public policy. While articulating the challenges, we have categorised them under two major heads: internal (from within the organisation) and external challenges (from outside the organisation). Resistance to change, introduction of change management, predecessor-successor syndrome, agency problems are some of the internal challenges faced by the police organisation while introducing community policing. Under the head of external challenges, we have highlighted the lack of political will and acceptance of community policing as a public policy, trust deficit and resource scarcity of the police organisation as some of the major challenges. The analysis of the context-process-outcome matrix and the challenges to community policing scheme in Kerala have been filtered out in the form of a set of recommendations that may serve as guiding principles to policy makers and policy implementers in introducing community policing schemes as a public policy. The knowledge on policy processes, the policy environment and the dynamics of policy making and policy evolution during implementation, we hope, will enable the policy makers and implementers to better appreciate the nuances of public policy. ***

6

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING Community policing, as adopted worldwide now, has been described as a concept, an organizational structure, a strategy, a programme or tactic, a set of values and a philosophy. It has a long past but a short history. Community policing is considered a popular contemporary policing approach in response to the decline in public confidence in the police and growing evidence that police forces cannot fight crime by themselves. Community policing incorporates a philosophy that determines the manner in which police agencies engage the public and that broadens the police mission from a narrow focus on crime and law enforcement to a mandate encouraging the exploration of creative solutions for a host of community concerns including crime, fear of crime, perceptions of disorder, quality of life and neighbourhood conditions. It is a philosophy based on the premise that police officers and private citizens work together in a creative way to solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, disorder and neighbourhood decay. It seeks to develop a new relationship with the law abiding people of the community, thereby allowing them a greater say in setting local policing priorities and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in their neighbourhood. The beat police officer is in touch with the people of the beat area on a daily basis and develops a personal rapport with these people and earns their trust. Here, the police serves as a catalyst and the people accept their share of responsibility for solving local problems related to crime, disorder and security (Punnoose 2008).

Community Policing : Definitions and Features Community policing has come to mean different things to different people. For reformers, community policing is a movement. For police entrepreneurs, it is a new paradigm of policing, a guiding philosophy, albeit one that is hard to precisely define and measure. Some agencies think of it as a set of community-oriented programmes and practices, crime-prevention units, and police patrols. Agencies, practitioners, and researchers tend to

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

7

define it differently, although most definitions contain similar principles, including problem solving, community involvement and organizational decentralization (Skogan 2004). The community policing movement has wrestled with the tension between philosophical ambiguity and programmatic specific strategy for quite some time. So what is community policing? What does it mean when a police agency claims to practice community policing? This section explores these questions. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology defines community policing as: “A philosophy of policing that promotes community-based problem solving strategies to address the underlying causes of crime and disorder and fear of crime and provides reassurance. It is a process by which crime control is shared, or co-produced with the public, and a means of developing communication with the public thus enhancing the quality of life of local communities and building police legitimacy.” (Virta 2006, 52)

According to Bayley, community policing is a strategy for encouraging the public to become partners with the police in controlling and preventing crime. It does so by demonstrating to the public that police is prepared to respond to their security concerns, values their advice, and will act in a fair, honest, and impartial manner. In exchange, the police asks the public for assistance by providing information about crime, criminals, and circumstances that create crime, and by contributing their time, resources, and moral support for crime prevention programmes. In short, community policing views public cooperation as essential to successful crime control and develops programmes to obtain willing public assistance (Bayley 2005). Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux define community policing as a new philosophy of policing based on the premise that police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and neighbourhood decay (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1994). Cordner argues that community policing is often misunderstood as a concept and recognises that community policing is not the answer to all the problems which plague modern policing (Cordner 2007b, 1). It should not be misconstrued in an anti-law enforcement or anti-crime fighting manner. It does not seek to obliterate the divide between police work and social work. There is neither an iron-clad, precise definition of community policing nor a specific set of activities that must always be included. A set of universallyapplicable principles and elements can be identified, but exactly how they are implemented should and must vary from place to place, because jurisdictions and police agencies have differing needs and circumstances.

8

CHAPTER ONE

The Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) of the Department of Justice of the United States of America defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.”

In the opinion of many American scholars and practitioners, community policing is based on the joint efforts of citizens and police officers towards the resolution of neighbourhood problems which, in turn, satisfies the expressed needs of citizens and enhances the residents’ quality of life. “There is also a continental concept (policing in proximity), in which community policing is a tactical strategy to increase the visibility of the police officers in specific areas to prevent crime and disorder,’’ argues Choudhury (Choudhury 2009, 35). Choudhury also finds that “to Spellman and Eck (1989), it is a strategy which combines citizen interaction with imaginative problem-solving techniques which reduces the incidence of crime. To Herman Goldstein (1990), it is primarily defined in terms of the ability of the police to identify, analyse and resolve crimerelated problems specific to a given community. To Alpert and Dunham (1988), it is the means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the police by adjusting police styles to conform to specific community needs.”

Therefore, it is not surprising that community policing holds different meanings for different authors.In general, it is agreed that community policing involves problem-solving and community engagement with an emphasis on police-community partnerships to solve the underlying problems of crime, the fear of crime, physical and social disorder, and neighbourhood decay (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990; Palmiotto 2000). Existing literature generally describes the primary objective of community policing as positive police-community relationships, which are achieved through community engagement through the emphasis of collaboration and prevention (Cordner and Perkins 2005). Bucqueroux uses a medical analogy to describe community policing. To Bucqueroux, patrol officers are “society’s emergency room physicians” responding rapidly to an occurrence, whereas, the community police is the “family physician who has the time and opportunity to not only treat an illness but to prevent disease and promote good health” (Bucqueroux 2007). Fielding suggests that community policing is not a single concept but could mean:

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

9

“a contrast to rapid response and enforcement-oriented policing, so constables are closer to the community: a process by which crime control is shared with the public or a means of developing communication with the public and interest groups.” (Fielding 1995, 25)

Internationally, it is agreed that community policing needs to be a long term strategy with long term outcomes to allow for the development of decision making processes and a police culture that fosters the concept. Community policing can be defined as a justice delivery mechanism and strategy that decentralizes policing services to smaller areas, provides stable beat assignments to increase coordination and cooperation between the police and the community, assists in assessing problems and strengthening community defences against criminal penetration and utilizes the resources of other agencies and programmes in both the public and the private sector to reduce and prevent crime.

Key Features of Community Policing The essence of community policing is to minimise the gap between policemen and citizens to such an extent that the police becomes an integrated part of the community it serves. If this is to be achieved, the individual policeman should know each member of the community and he should, in turn, be known by them. An atmosphere of harmony and trust, devoid of both anonymity and animosity, is necessary. Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux argued “Community policing, as a model is very complex because it entails implementation throughout a police department, not just selected units of officers. It is complex because it requires that the police department, and a number of levels, be in synchronization with the community it serves. Finally, it is complex because it requires not only that police agencies do different things such as meet with the community, allow the communities to decide police operations, or emphasize order maintenance over law enforcement, but it also means that police departments perform many of their old tasks differently.” (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990, 7)

Community policing truly is a paradigm shift. While community policing employs a number of strategies and tactics, the true essence of community policing is akin to the glue that holds these strategies and tactics together. The basic unit of community policing should be geographically, and

10

CHAPTER ONE

demographically, compact enough to enable a foot-patrolman to know everyone within a reasonable span of time and in turn be recognised by every member of the community. The policing and security needs of a compact geographical area can be easily identified and attended to by employing local resources. Such knowledge will also limit the incidence of local anti-social behaviour, apart from keeping outsiders at bay. Proactive action is the other key characteristic of community policing. Proactive steps will lead to the growth of co-operation and partnership in crime prevention and security in the local area, and shall earn the community police officer the acceptance and trust of the community. Eventually, his very presence in the area will deter crime and disorderly behaviour. Once this is achieved, the community will also be willing to accept the police officer’s authority. When such a bond takes root, it shall also bring the community together (a factor conspicuous by its absence from today’s urban settlements) and enhance the citizens’ ability to resolve their conflicts without the involvement of the police. In fact, such a coming together will reduce conflicts to a great extent (Punnoose 2008). Reiss identified two trajectories of contemporary police reform that have been defined as community policing. The first, generally referred to as community or neighbourhood-oriented policing assumes that closer police-community relationships are desirable and are instrumental in providing a safer, more viable environment. This has translated into various forms of decentralized services, such as storefront operations and permanent beat assignments, police tactics, such as foot patrols and new structures including crime watch and prevention programmes that require the cooperation of the community. The other trajectory is referred to as problem-oriented policing. This approach concentrates on identifying, analyzing and responding to community problems in a systematic and substantive way. These two approaches differ in their goals, but they are not mutually irreconcilable and may be used in combination by some departments. While communityoriented policing aims at increasing community involvement and satisfaction with police services, problem-oriented policing seeks to reduce targeted problems in the neighbourhood. Both of these approaches are in sharp contrast to traditional policing.

Differences between Traditional Policing and Community Policing A distinction between community policing and traditional policing is attempted in Table 1.1.

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

Basis

Work Orientation

Traditional Policing A government agency responsible for law enforcement Unlawful incidents

Response & Role

Relative to incidents

Resource Use

Forum on internal resources Supervision is control-oriented and authoritative Limited information from the community

Police

Supervision Style Information Source Efficiency measurement Priorities Professionalism Accountability

Prosecution

By detection and arrest rate; Response time Crimes that are heinous and violent Swift and effective response to serious crime Highly centralized; governed by rules, regulations and policy directives; accountable to the law An important goal

11

Community Policing The police are the public and the public are the police Citizen's problems and concerns Proactive in solving community-related problems; discuss possible solutions with the community Leverage on community resources Supervision is problemoriented and democratic Information from the community comes from many sources By the absence of crime and disorder; Public cooperation The problems that disturb the community most Keeping close ties with the community Emphasis on local accountability to community needs

One tool among many

Table 1.1 : Traditional Policing and Community Policing According to Skogan (1995), community policing is based on the following general principles:

12

CHAPTER ONE

i.

Community policing relies upon organizational decentralization and reorientation of patrols in order to facilitate two-way communication between the police and the public. ii. Community policing assumes a commitment to broadly focused, problem-oriented policing. iii. It requires that the police are responsive to citizens’ demands when they decide what local problems are and set their priorities accordingly. iv. It implies a commitment to helping neighbourhoods solve criminal problems on their own, through community organizations and crime prevention programmes. Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux identified four major facets of community policing (Trojanowicz and Bucquerouz 1990, 3-7). These consist of a philosophical facet, an organisational and personal facet, a strategic facet and a programmatic facet, with each facet consisting of sub-facets. Philosophically speaking, community policing consists of a number of community based elements that differentiate it from the traditional professional model. Some of the core community policing ideas include a broad police function amidst a community focus, community input, concern for the people, developing trust, sharing power, encouraging creativity, and accounting for variations from one neighbourhood to another. With regard to the organizational and personal facet, community policing is more than merely involving people in crime control; it is an active attempt at enhancing the involvement of the community. The police must change its organisational structure, modify its personal orientation and adjust its value systems to allow for community policing. Strategies provide guidelines for the development of specific programmes. Community policing has at least three strategic facets. These facets include geographic focus and ownership, direct, daily, face-to-face contact, and prevention focus. These three parameters should guide operational planning when implementing community policing. The above philosophy and strategies must be operationalized into specific tactics or programmes which should include reoriented police operations, problem solving and situational crime prevention, and community engagement.

Nine P’s of Community Policing Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux in their book “Community Policing: How to Get Started” list out nine P’s of community policing (1983-4) and state

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

13

“Community policing is a philosophy of full service personalized policing, where the same officer patrols and works in the same area on a permanent basis from a decentralized place, working in a proactive partnership with citizens to identify and solve problems”.

First, Community policing is a philosophy. The community policing philosophy rests on the belief that contemporary challenge require the police to provide full service policing, proactive and reactive, by involving the community directly as partners in the process of identifying, prioritizing and solving’, problems including crime, fear of crime, illicit drugs, social and physical disorder and neighborhood decay. A departmentwide commitment implies changes in policies and procedures. Secondly, it involves personalized service. By providing the community its own community policing officer, community policing breaks down anonymity on both sides-community policing officers and community residents know each other on first name basis. The third acronym “p” stands for Policing. Community policing maintains a strong law enforcement focus; community policing officers answer calls and make arrests like any ‘other officer, but they also focus on proactive problem solving. Fourthly, community policing officers patrol their communities, but the goal is to free them from the isolation of the patrol car, often by having them walk the beat or rely on other modes of transport such as bicycles, scooters or horses. The fifth acronym “p” for permanence means that community policing officers should not be rotated in and out of their beats and they should not be used as ‘’fill-ins’’ for absences and vacations of other personnel. Community policing requires assigning community policing officers permanently to defined beats; so-that they have the time, opportunity and continuity to develop the new partnership. The sixth acronym “p” stands for place. All jurisdictions, no matter how large, ultimately break down into smaller neatly distinct neighborhoods. Community policing officers can benefit from “owning” their neighborhood beats in which they can act as a “mini-chief,” tailoring the response to the needs and resources of the beat area. Moreover community policing decentralizes decision making not only by allowing community policing officers the autonomy and freedom to act but also by empowering all officers to participate in community based problem solving. The seventh acronym “p” stands for proactive nature of community policing initiatives. As part of providing full service policing, community policing balances reactive responses to crime incidences and emergencies with a proactive focus on preventing problems before they occur or escalate.

14

CHAPTER ONE

The eighth acronym “p” stands for partnership dimension of community policing initiatives. Community policing encourages a new partnership between people and their police, which rests on mutual respect, civility and support. The last but not the least is problem solving. Community policing redefines the mission of the police to focus on solving problems so that success or failure depends on qualitative outcome (problem solved) rather than just on quantitative results (arrests made, citations issued- so called ‘number policing’). Both qualitative and quantitative measures are necessary.

What is not Community Policing? It is important for police practitioners and policy makers to understand what practices do not constitute community policing. While attempting to understand the features of community policing, it is important to know what does not constitute community policing. Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux have listed them as the following (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990): i. Community policing is not a technique, but an entirely new way of thinking about the role of the police in the community. ii. Community policing is not public relations. Police-community relations are currently by and large for the sake of appearance, while community policing is substantive. iii. Community policing is not soft on crime. An important ingredient of community policing is to focus on these hot spots. iv. Community policing is not flamboyant. Community policing recognizes that the job gets done through steady, hard work, not warrior images and tactical exercises. v. Community policing is not paternalistic. The traditional, paternalistic attitude suggests that crime is so complex and difficult that it must be left in the hands of skilled professionals specifically trained for the job. vi. Community policing is not an independent entity within the department. Ultimately, the community policing philosophy must encompass the entire department. vii. Community policing is not cosmetic. Unlike crime prevention and police community relations programmes, community policing goes beyond providing information and expressing goodwill. Community policing requires that the police department make substantive changes to how it interacts with the public.

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

15

viii. Community policing is not just another name for social work. The police officer must play several roles - law enforcer and peace officer, armed symbol of authority and part time social worker. It is this blend of force and compassion that makes the concept so potent and unique. No other job in civil society permits a person to choose from an array of responses that range from flashing a friendly smile to the use of deadly force. ix. Community policing is not elitist. It offers everyone an opportunity to become involved. This opportunity to participate often reduces some of the hostility from the community. x. Community policing is not designed to favour the rich and powerful. It implies empowering the disadvantaged and thereby providing them with the ability to secure a fair share of the benefit of public services. xi. Community policing is not safe. Affording officers the freedom to attempt creative solutions to problems carries with it the risk of mistakes that can range from the embarrassing to the disastrous. Community policing dictates that the police department must learn to accept the occasional mistake, so that officers can optimally channel their education, training, experience, professional instincts and imagination towards solving the community’s problems. xii. Community policing is not a series or bundle of programmes. Too often, programmes are implemented in a vacuum whereby they have little contact with other units and programmes. Here, there is an emphasis on co-ordination and synergy. xiii. Community policing is not merely problem-oriented policing. Under problem-oriented policing, the community may or may not be engaged in the identification and control of a community problem. Under community policing, there is always a collaborative level of cooperation between the police and the community. According to the official website of the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) of the Department of Justice of the United States of America, community policing comprises three key components: Community Partnerships, Organisational Transformation and Problem Solving. i. Community Partnerships: Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organisations they serve to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in the police. ii. Organisational Transformation: The alignment of organisational management, structure, personnel, and information systems to support community partnerships and proactive problem solving.

16

CHAPTER ONE

iii. Problem Solving: The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic examination of identified problems to develop and rigorously evaluate effective responses.

Dimensions of Community Policing Coquilhat, through an extensive survey of literature, has explored and analysed twelve elements under the four dimensions of community policing (Coquilhat 2008) - the philosophical, strategic, tactical and organisational dimensions as identified by Dr. Gary Cordner (Cordner 1999). The philosophical dimension includes elements like the role of citizen input, broad function and personalised service. The strategic dimension comprises elements such as re-oriented operations, prevention emphasis and geographical focus. The tactical dimension includes elements like positive interaction, partnerships and problem solving. The organisational dimension includes elements like structure, management and information. The analysis has been broad-based indeed and is worth quoting (Coquilhat 2008): i. Philosophical dimension – the ideas and beliefs that underpin community policing a) Citizen input: • The community determines, prioritises and finds solutions to problems • The police responds to community concerns • The police uses a number of methods to engage the community b) Broad function: • Continuous sustained contact with the community is emphasised • Other public and private agencies are involved • The police personnel are planners, problem solvers and community organisers • The police’s role includes conflict resolution, helping victims and reducing the fear of crime c) Personal service: • The police adopts a customer service approach • The police are perceived as accessible, knowing and appreciative of what the community wants and needs • Each community deals with a specific officer

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

•

ii. a)

b)

c)

iii. a)

b)

17

Community policing is a philosophy, not a programme or a project • Long term community involvement is imperative Strategic dimension – translates philosophies into action Re-oriented operations: • Tools are developed to address the underlying conditions that lead to crime • Operational practices are interactive • Enforcement remains a core function of the police • There is a focus on long term solutions Prevention emphasis: • The police have a proactive and preventive focus • Communities are encouraged to enhance safety • Long term benefits are achieved as a consequence of collective prevention Geographical focus: • Officers have permanent and continuing responsibilities towards specific communities, and these communities have come together organically as opposed to being defined statistically • Locally based officers increase accountability, responsibility and communication • The department develops flexibility in responding to the local context because each community has individual characteristics Tactical dimension – translates philosophy and strategies into concrete programmes, tactics and behaviours Positive interaction: • Positive interactions with all parts of the community to counter the generally negative image of policing • This is enhanced through techniques such as media campaigns, a reassuring police presence in commercial districts and accessible mini-stations • Benefits include trust-building, knowledge-gathering and problem-solving Partnerships: • Working in partnership with the community and agencies to achieve desired outcomes • Developing collaborative and targeted responses to community issues

18

CHAPTER ONE

• •

Ensuring that a broad range of issues are addressed This is exchange of information is mutually beneficial to the police and the community c) Problem solving: • Addresses the underlying causes of community issues • Communities play an important role in identifying and addressing their issues • Involves an interactive process that forms the essence of community policing • Decreased reliance on traditional criminal justice responses to problems iv. Organisational dimension – supporting changes to promote community policing a) Structure: • Broad organisational goals encourage a culture that supports community policing • Employ long term strategies that support community policing • Put in place structures and training that promote community policing • Requires a whole-of-police approach b) Management: • The management develops and takes ownership of problem solving and solutions • Police executives provide leadership in support of community policing practices • It is important to measure organisational support and structures as well as perceptions and the impact c) Information: • Systems are crucial in the identification and analysis of problems and issues • Emphasis on qualitative measures rather than quantitative measures • Information can be sourced from police appraisals, evaluations and performance indicators

Potential Benefits Advocates for community policing have highlighted many reasons for community policing being beneficial to society. These arguments were

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

19

classified into three categories by Segrave and Ratcliffe (Segrave and Ratcliffe 2004): i. Community-specific benefits • Mobilization and empowerment of communities to identify and respond to concerns • Improved local physical and social environment • Increase in positive attitudes towards police • Reduced fear of crime ii. Police-specific benefits • Improved police-community relationship • Improved community perception of police ‘legitimacy’ • An increase in work satisfaction for police officers iii. Shared benefits • A decreased potential for police-citizen conflict • A reduction in crime rates • A better flow of information between the police and community

Criticism of Community Policing In questioning community policing, Weatheritt thought that it might not be realistic to set objectives for the police and expect the police to establish schemes to meet those objectives (Weatheritt 1983). Waddington observed that “the largely uncritical acceptance with which this notion has been welcomed is itself a danger. Any proposal, however attractive, should be subjected to careful and sceptical scrutiny.” (Waddington 1984, 84) He further noted that since order could only be maintained by a community itself, the police alone would not be successful. Although police officers require the consent of the citizens to be effective under the community policing scheme, that consent is not granted in several instances. He thought that if the police then revert to law enforcement to get the job done, the community might feel that community policing is being abandoned. Waddington felt that community policing was nothing more than a throwback to the “bobby on the beat” concept of policing, because it was less impersonal than the officer “flashing past” in a police car. He concluded that community policing was a “romantic delusion” because it was not based on “the world we have lost” as some supporters are claiming. According to him, there was never a time when the police officer was everyone’s friend, and there will never be such a time in the future.

20

CHAPTER ONE

Short was afraid that if the police get involved in community development, it would pose “serious questions of political accountability.” She went further to explain that to pretend that police neutrality will uncover simple remedies or solutions for “disadvantage and inequality” is either a “naive delusion” or “implies an expansion of the political powers of the police which carries dangerous implications.” (Short 1983, 80) McDonald warned that “without better internal guidance, the initiative is like a dangerous weapon launched in a general direction but capable of going astray.” (McDonald 1993, 153) He concluded that “community policing is an ill-defined and internally contradictory vision that would sacrifice legality, liberty, and efficiency for democracy and order.” (McDonald 1993, 165) It seems that McDonald did not support democracy as the preferred form of government and did not care for law and order in communities, as the majority of law abiding citizens presumably do. One also wonders which version of community policing McDonald referred to when he wrote “Community policing does not enhance the rule of law and, in some versions, may well subvert it.” (McDonald 1993, 165) Mastrofski claimed that “justifying police and what they do has always been problematic in democracies.” (Matrofski 1988, 61) If there were a democracy where no crimes were committed, we would not need the police. However, as long as crime is on the increase, it seems that law abiding citizens will have enough reasons to justify the need for the police in their countries and communities. Klockars argued that the police forces do not really want to make change their behaviour and are merely using community policing to gain legitimacy (Klockars 1988). Eck felt that community policing practices will not reduce the tension between the police and the public, but “at best they will make police actions more acceptable to the public, even if due process is violated.” (Eck 1993, 73) To overcome some of these problems, Mastrofski and Greene suggested that “the impetus for community participation must be sustained more by the community’s continuing commitment to achieve it than by police willingness to try it.” (Matrofski and Greene 1993, 99) They also stated that if community policing was something more than just rhetoric, the police would not implement it. Weatheritt also wrote that community policing fails to address the problems of practical and constitutional limits to police actions and that the concept is seductive to the public only because it is vague. Bayley has stated that “it is probably fair to say that community policing in 1988 is more rhetoric than reality.” (Bayley 1988, 225) Buerger has responded, contending that “reinventing the police is all but impossible; the police rank-and-file energetically defend their prerogatives. Reinventing the community is almost as difficult; the most that can be done is to redefine

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

21

it in symbolic terms.” (Buerger 1993, 121) Alexander claimed that community policing programs give very little real power to the community. He also argued that “the programmes have seldom served as a handle for real reform of brutal police departments and are in most cases cosmetic at best.” (Alexander 1995, 93) Manning claimed that “community policing is no different from other police strategies aimed at shaping and manipulating public opinion.” (Manning 1988, 40) Since the police control all information about crime and disorder, he believed that they use rhetoric in “political dramas” to manage impressions of their power and efficacy. Wycoff presented the possibility that if the police and the members of the public work together too closely, there could be an increase in police corruption (Wycoff 1988). Critics also point to the failure of some patrol experiments to reduce the crime rate and use the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al. 1991) and the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (Pate 1986) as their primary examples. However, it should be noted that these experiments were limited to patrol activities alone and cannot honestly be described as failed community policing projects. Greene and Taylor claimed that the numerous design and analytical shortcomings of these studies indicated the poor theory on which they were based (Greene and Taylor 1988). Klockars (1988:247) added to that by saying that the “police can no more create communities or solve the problems of urban anomie than they can be legalized into agents of the courts or depoliticized into pure professionals.” (Klockars 1988, 257)

Critic of Critiques Ericson felt that “critical analysts typically read the models of social institutions as ideologies and forms of rhetoric that are separate from reality.” (Ericson et al. 1993, 43) This is especially true in the case of community policing and these critics pretend that rhetoric and reality are mutually exclusive, or in some form of opposition to one another. Bobinsky claimed that as a law enforcement officer, he was cautious and sceptical at first because he did not want to become “a social worker with a badge.” However, after seeing that “a more involved community translates into a community more willing to participate with its police department,” Bobinsky became convinced of its value (Bobinsky 1994, 19). Too many critics have the tendency to dismiss, as worthless, any community policing ideas that do not have an immediate effect (Schaffer 1980). However, Lambert reminded us that the effectiveness of the police is largely determined by external factors

22

CHAPTER ONE

(Lambert 1984). These include the nature of the laws the police must enforce and the support and involvement of the public. Bryett and Harrison also noted that “it seems that society will only too readily divest itself of responsibility for its own shortcomings by just as readily blaming the most obvious, tangible manifestation of authority, the police.” (Bryett and Harrison 1993, 146) However, Reiner indicated that police efficiency and legal and community accountability should not be seen as contradictory terms, but rather as inextricably interdependent (Reiner 1994). Friedmann wrote that much of the resistance against community policing is rationalised on the basis of high cost and effectiveness and efficiency issues (Friedmann 1992). However, he stated that the long term benefits might offset the start-up costs and pointed out that not even the critics are sure how to measure police effectiveness accurately. Miller and Hess noted that some simple and very basic services that police departments might provide for the community cost very little and require limited personnel (Miller and Hess 1994). As regards the costs involved, Inkster pointed out that because of “budget reductions and present economic conditions,” we should be persuaded “of the sense of the community policing approach.” (Inkster 1992, 31) Brown agreed and observed that “experience has shown that community policing as a dominant policing style is a better, more effective and more cost-effective means of using police resources.” (Brown 1989, 10) Kirby also argued that community members can become a valuable and free resource to assist the police in crime prevention (Peak 1993). Contrary to what critics claim, community policing “eliminates law enforcement’s adversarial relationships with law-abiding citizens.” (Cox 1992, 4) Vernon and Lasley found that in inner-city neighbourhoods with high crime rates and deep-rooted anxieties, community policing could “unfreeze” perceptual gaps between police and citizens (Vernon and Lasley 1992, 21). Community policing can even help renters in multi-housing projects to “feel ‘pride of ownership’ towards their communities.” (Zehring 1994, 12) According to Tyre and Braunstein, the use of civilian review boards will help to satisfy citizens’ expectations of sensitivity and accountability from law enforcement (Tyre and Braunstein, 1994). Community policing can have a positive influence on the way police officers use their discretion while enforcing the law. During a study in Richmond, Virginia, to determine the patterns of police discretion it was found that officers who were favourable to the community policing concept made fewer arrests than other officers. It was also shown that these officers made their arrests based on and guided by legal considerations and that they made fewer discriminatory decisions (US National Institute of Justice 1996).

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

23

Schaffer cautioned that casting aside bad habits is a slow and expensive procedure and that positive change cannot be expected overnight. McDowell stated that community policing represents a radical departure from the traditional philosophy of policing, and critics should therefore note that such a shift in organisational values is difficult and takes time to implement (McDowell 1993). Trojanowicz reminded critics that he, as one of the big proposers of the concept, understood that community policing “is not an overnight miracle cure or quick fix, even if it may make dramatic and immediate improvements.” (Trojanowicz 1992, 12) Brown and Iles noted that if the changes suggested in their report were to be realised, the attitudes to community policing would have to change (Brown and Iles 1985). However, these changes will have to come from both within and outside the police force and that will not be an easy task.

Theories of Community Policing Several theories have been advanced on community policing by researchers, academics and practitioners world over. Some of the theories captured for the purpose of present study are Goldstein’s Problem Oriented Policing, J Q Wilson and G L Kelling’s “Incivility Hypothesis”, otherwise referred to as the Broken Windows Theory, M S Morabito’s Theory of Innovation, R C Trojanowicz’s Community Policing (CP) and Police Community Relation (PCR), K C Wong’s Social Resource Theory (SRT), Victor E Kappeler’s Paradigm Shift, Lawrence & Lorsch’s Contingency Theory, J M Wilson’s Institutional Theory and Rohit Choudhary’s Megadigm shift. The idea behind revisiting some of the abovementioned theories is to compare and contrast them with the findings of our field study on community policing and to emerge with a Context-Process-Outcome Matrix for policy makers.

Problem Oriented Policing (POP): Goldstein In the U.S.A. and Canada, reform movements were informed by two main ideas, both of which are highly compatible with those initial systems. The first idea was introduced by Herman Goldstein in his decisive trilogy, consisting of the book Policing a Free Society (published in 1977), the article Improving the Police: A Problem-Oriented Approach (published in 1979) and a later book, Problem-Oriented Policing (published in 1990).

24

CHAPTER ONE

In these works, Goldstein spelled out the foundations of an innovative approach to the provision of public safety, Problem-Oriented Policing, widely referred to as its acronym POP. This approach sought to redefine the “professional” or “traditional”, incident-oriented, police approach. The redefinition basically involved the de-construction of three traditional police myths. The first myth was that the main aspect of police work was the apprehension of criminals, in order to hold them accountable for their crimes. Goldstein argued that law enforcement by means of deterrence and repression was not the primary function of police work and should be considered one of a range of mechanisms to ensure the safety of citizens. The second myth was that punitive law enforcement was indeed the most effective way to curb crime. The author asserted that prevention also had a significant effect in increasing safety and order. The third myth dealt with the traditional “means-over-ends” focus of the police, an obsession with procedure and equipment that largely had no real impact on the safety of citizens. Goldstein further suggested that greater police efficiency could be achieved in the course of detailed analyses of discrete aspects of crime problems and the development of adequate responses, rather than, for example, increasing the number of police cars, or using more powerful weapons, or changing management styles. Given its focus on problems – persistent episodes of similar incidents, whether crime or acts of disorder – this approach was defined as problem-oriented policing (POP).

Incivility Hypothesis or “Broken Windows”: J Q Wilson and G L Kelling The second idea that influenced police reform in the United Stated of America in the 1980s was Wilson and Kelling’s “incivilities hypothesis”, first published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982 in an article titled Broken Windows. Wilson and Kelling’s incivilities hypothesis holds, in short, that unless firmly suppressed, a disorderly environment or antisocial behaviour in public will frighten citizens and attract predatory criminals, thus cascading into more serious criminal problems. The innovation of this idea lies in the unprecedented relationship it highlights between urban degradation and disorder. It also suggests the redefinition of the role of the police, by observing that it should be more actively involved with the community. Subsequently, Kelling and Coles,

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

25

in 1997, elaborated on Wilson and Kelling’s hypothesis and suggested further that urban degradation was related to criminality, including its more violent manifestations. In view of that, they argued that “fixing broken windows” through the formation of partnerships between the community and state agencies could result in the prevention of criminal and disorderly situations. This logic calls for a higher degree of interaction between the state and law-abiding citizens through sustainable and enduring affiliations and joint ventures so that undesirable situations are duly anticipated and dealt with, before they become crimino-genic. Goldstein’s “problem-oriented policing” and Wilson and Kelling’s “incivilities hypothesis” form the philosophical core of the contemporary Western community policing model. These two ideas are the building blocks of the two central strategic and operational elements of the American community policing model: problemsolving and partnership- building (Roth and Ryan 2000).

The Theory of Innovation: M S Morabito Morabito has propounded the theory of innovation. In the 1980s and 1990s, community policing was viewed by many as a radical innovation in the field of policing, with the vast majority of police agencies reported to have adopted the approach. Despite its overwhelming popularity, most police agencies did not adopt the central elements of community policing. There is a set of core elements that should be present in any agency that purports to be practicing the philosophy. These include the use of a problem solving orientation, collaboration with community stakeholders, and organisational change to facilitate community policing. Unfortunately, not all agencies have chosen to implement community policing through a departmental shift in philosophy, but have rather applied it on an ad-hoc basis. This theory examines patterns of community policing adoption over 474 police departments across the United States. Using an innovations framework, a model was developed that measures the extent to which community characteristics, organisational complexity, and organisational commitment can explain differences in the adoption of community policing. Findings suggest that the innovations approach can explain some variation in the adoption of community policing and should be considered in future police research. To explain this variation, Morabito applies a theoretical framework found in the innovations literature. This framework identifies three sets of factors that should predict community policing adoption:

26

CHAPTER ONE

i. community characteristics ii. organisational structure iii. organisational commitment Community Characteristics 1. Social Disorganisation 2. Centralisation of Power 3. Concentration of Power 4. Violent Crime Agency Characteristics 1. Size 2. Formulation of Structure

Adoption of COP

Organisation Commitment 1. Training 2. COP Plan

Figure 1.1 : Theory of Innovation The first, and most diffuse, of these concepts, is community characteristics and this includes a variety of predicted relationships. It predicts that concentrated disadvantage should be negatively related to the adoption of community policing. While the innovation should not be costly in and of itself, it requires a wholesale change to organisational structures, and may thus consume additional resources. The theory also predicts that concentrated political power should aid community policing adoption. Governmental bodies with a single decision-making authority, such as a city manager, should be better able to move towards innovation as the opposition to this will be less able. Similarly, citizen involvement might impede adoption because it introduces influential individuals who may be opposed to the innovation. Finally, higher levels of violent crime could hamper adoption due to the increased requirements placed on officers’ time to handle citizen calls, with less time allowed for additional community policing activities. The second and third sets of concepts - organisational characteristics and organisational commitment - also propose additional predictions. Those

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

27

organisational characteristics that should aid the adoption of community policing are a formalised organisation and larger agency size. A more formalised organization (one which places greater emphasis on rules and procedures) should aid implementation as a result of its ability to repress dissent. Conversely, larger agencies should be able to implement community policing more easily due to easier incorporation of new ideas and practices, and greater resources. Somewhat more obviously, organisational commitment should predict increased adoption. Those departments that offer community policing training and incorporate a community policing plan should increase implementation rates. To test the theory, Morabito uses measures of the concepts found in the 1997 and 2000 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Surveys, the 1997 Uniform Crime Reports, City/County Databook and the 1990 United States Census. The resulting multivariate analyses of these data found that only the centralisation of political power, agency size and organisational commitment may predict community policing adoption. Morabito finds it curious that the centralisation of political power is the only predictive community variable, and posits that the availability of federal funding may have rendered the other concepts moot. Morabito also finds the significance of agency size to illuminate the difficulty encountered by small agencies in the implementation of police innovations. However, it might also demonstrate the inapplicability of community policing to agencies whose populace is too geographically separated for the innovation to be appropriate.

Community Policing and Police Community Relations: RC Trojanowicz Confusion persists concerning what community policing is, how it works, and what it can accomplish. Much of the continuing criticism suggests that community policing (CP) merely revisits well-worn elements of policecommunity relations (PCR) and repackages them with a trendy new buzz word (Trojanowicz 1972). In this context, the differences between community policing and police-community relations need to be harmonised for the successful implementation of community policing. By comparing and contrasting the differences between community policing and policecommunity relations, we can clear up lingering confusions and may clarify how community policing works.

28

CHAPTER ONE

Parameter

Community Policing

Theory

Community policing is based on organisational theory, open systems theory, critical theory, normative sponsorship theory, and public policy analysis. Community policing requires a departmentwide philosophical commitment to involve average citizens as partners in the process of reducing and controlling the contemporary problems of crime, drugs, fear of crime, and neighbourhood decay, and efforts to improve the overall quality of life in the community.

Mission

Organisational strategy

Community policing requires everyone in the department, sworn and civilian personnel at all levels, to explore how they can carry out the mission through their actions on the job. Equally essential is that the department must permanently deploy a portion of its patrol force

Police-community relations Police-community relations are based on conflict theory, intergroup relations theory, and communications theory. Police-community relations is not a philosophy, but rather a limited approach that was often viewed as public relations aimed at reducing hostility towards the police among minorities. In essence, policecommunity relations imply a narrow, bureaucratic response to a specific problem, rather than a fundamental change in the overall mission of the department and increased expectations of the community. A police-community relation is an isolated specialty unit, made up exclusively of staff personnel whose duties are bound by the narrow definition of their goals. These units have limited ongoing, intensive outreach to the community and no mechanism to effect

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

Operational Goals

as community officers in specified beats so they can maintain direct, daily contact with the average citizen. A department-wide commitment to community policing means that everyone's job must be reassessed in light of the new mission. For example, this may mean providing motor patrol officers new freedom to experiment with problem-solving techniques. It can also mean small courtesies, such as providing civilian personnel a revised telephone directory designed to enable them to connect a caller to the right person on the first try.

change police itself.

29

within the department

In contrast to this grassroots approach that involves average citizens who live in the neighbourhood, policecommunity relations officers tend to communicate most often with the elite, both inside and outside the department. Their outreach consists of meetings with blueribbon panels and community leaders, particularly those who represent the predominant ethnic, religious, and racial minorities (and who may or may not have their fingers on the pulse of their constituents).

Table 1.2 : Differences between CP and PCR Trojanowicz argues that community policing owes a debt to both policecommunity relations and crime prevention for clarifying the scope of the problem and attempting to solve it. However, community policing most directly addresses the need to restructure and refocus officer selection, training, evaluation and promotion. As we make headway into the 21st century, we see that community policing is the wave of the future because it delivers direct services and challenges the community to do its share.

30

CHAPTER ONE

Social Resource Theory (SRT): Kam C Wong Social resource theory offers a radically different theory of community policing. The SRT addresses three main questions. What is the role and function of the police? What is the relationship of the police with the people? Why do people call the police? SRT (re)conceptualizes crime and police from the perspective of the people, not that of the state. From the people’s perspective, crimes are personal problems, while problems are unmet expectations resulting from resource deficiencies and the police is a social resource made available to the people for solving their own problems. In terms of its foundation, SRT is a theory of the people, a theory of democratic governance, a theory of empowerment, and a theory of self-help. Depending on context and discipline, there are many definitions of the term “resource”. Some common definitions of “resource” are “a source of aid or support that may be drawn upon when needed.” It includes a person, thing or action needed for living or to improve the quality of life. “Resource” is defined as “things of all kinds, including power, time, materials, skills, culture, ideas, knowledge that can satisfy one’s expectations of wants and needs.” Wong (2009) Resource has three innate properties. First, resource is a necessary thing (people cannot do without it). Second, resource is an instrumental thing (needed to get things done). Finally, resource is a goal oriented thing (of use in solving problems). SRT starts with a basic observation that in a state run by the people, we must understand how the people conceive the nature of crime and the role of the police. From the perspective of the state, a crime is a legal violation. From the perspective of the people, crime is a set of life experiences, and a multi-faceted personal problem. From the perspective of the state, police power is a political resource to secure control and maintain order (Cyril and Scaglion 1987) as well as command obedience (Austin 1995). It is defined coercively, structured legally, organised bureaucratically and imposed unilaterally. From the people’s perspective, police power is a social resource made available by the state and draw upon by the citizens to handle personal problems in the nature of an emergency or a crisis. More significant, in the eyes of the people, police power is not reconstructed in political image, structured by law, organised with reference to police needs but dictated by the people and negotiated to fit the personal circumstances and situational needs of the problem at hand. On the whole, SRT argues that the definition and availability of police power as a political resource must occur at a structural macro level. These

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

31

may involve legislative process and policy debate and the initiation, distribution and disposition of police power in the same manner as at a personal, situational micro level which involves reporting crime and preferring charges. The SRT perspective is justified on a number of grounds (Wong 2009): i. First, SRT calls for looking at problems from the people’s perspective, as a matter of birthright and through a process of maturation. This means empowering the people to meet their own personal needs by supplying them with the necessary resources, on demand and as required. ii. Second, SRT corrects the lopsided relationship between the police and the people by returning the people to the centre stage, and putting them in control, thus achieving the communalisation, socialization or personalisation of crime. iii. Third, SRT marks a shift of focus from a state cantered community oriented policing to a people-oriented model of policing. While COP calls for the police to listen to and serve the needs of the community as a collective in order to enhance its political legitimacy and operational efficiency, SRT requires the police to be responsible and accountable to the people as individuals and as a collective. iv. Fourth, SRT gives a “social” meaning and lends “emotional” content to police through the adoption of people activities, such as dealing with personal issues, human problems, relationship difficulties of one form or another, which is what policing is all about. By doing so, it socialises and humanises the police as a people’s interface. v. Fifth, SRT liberates the police from the sterile confines of the law and stifling restrains of the bureaucracy. It gets away from a one size fits all “Mcdonaldization” of the police’s strategy and practices. vi. Sixth, SRT recognizes that police work should be as diverse and complex as the people’s problems. Policing should thus change with time, place, people, context, circumstances and situations. vii. Seventh, and most importantly, the SRT allows the people to be heard. For all too long, the public is an object of policing when in fact they are, and should be, the subject of policing. Instead of being policed, people are engage in problem solving. Wong gave a theory about “self-help” (Katyal 2005) “private ordering” and “personalised justice” (Reiss and Bordua 1967) and in the process, attempted a critique of Cumming, Goldstein and Bittner. This theoretical approach, looking at police services from the perspective of the public and

32

CHAPTER ONE

as personal/community problems, is anticipated by Cumming, Edell, Goldstein and Bittner, though they did not analyse the central proposition of this theory – people should be empowered to solve their own problems. Cumming discovered the “support” function of the police but failed to discuss its theoretical and operational import in terms of people’s policing (Cumming et al. 1965). Goldstein identified the “community problem solving” functions of the police but stops short of recognizing the citizens’ inherent right to demand that the police their own problems (Goldstein 1990). Bittner demonstrated that the police should be equipped with the “capacity and authority” to use coercive force as a solution to situational problems of all kinds without also realising that in fact, the police possesses a range of other resources such as diverse capacity and multitudinous authority, which may be utilised by the public for problem solving (Bittner 1975). Basis Definition of problem

Goldstein’s POP Police in consultation with the public

Ownership of problem Solution to problem

Police

Means to solve problem

Predominantly police resources

Role of police

State control agent

Role of citizen

Community participation (policy consultation) and assistance (eyes and ears)

Police provide solutions to problems

Wong’s SRT People identifying their own personal or community problems People People draw upon the police as a resource to solve personal problems Varieties of community/ personal resources People’s problem solving agent Citizen consults, engages, or directs the police to solve problem.

Table 1.3 : Problem Oriented Policing v. Social Resource Theory Wong went on to argue that “all these scholars contributed significantly to my thinking about people-problem oriented policing but none of them envision a re- conceptualization of the role (problem oriented) and relationship (people’s oriented) of the police to the people.” (Wong 2009, 23)

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

33

Moreover, Wong has attempted to compare and contrast CP and SRT. There are substantial differences between CP and SRT, in both theory and in practice. The table below illustrates the major differences between the traditional notions of CP and SRT. As discussed earlier, CP is a topdown “police” theory from the vantage point of the police whereas SRT is a “people” theory from below. CP presupposes and works towards consensus in the community, while SRT embraces and promotes diversity and individuality in defining the expectations of the police. CP is a control theory, while SRT is an empowerment theory. While CP looks at crime as legal violation, SRT considers crime as a people’s problem. CP relies on the police to solve legal violations whereas SRT depends on the people to resolve their personal problems. Parameter Ideological base

Traditional CP Orientation State

Theoretical Premise Power as instrumentality of State Police professional perspective Power is created and imposed from the centre

Traditional SRT Orientation Democratic

Whose Perspective

Police

Public

Vantage Point

Top Down Approach

Orientation

Past

Mechanical solidarity; punitive law Public justice; defendant’s rights

Future

Method

Consensus

People are more alike than different

Critical

Dimension

Unitary

Power as control

Dualistic

Bottom Up Approach

Theoretical Premise Power as a resource of the people Public personal perspective Power is developed and shared by the people Organic solidarity; restitution Law; private justice; victim’s rights People are more different than alike Power as control and service

34

CHAPTER ONE

Defined by

Law

Power justified by legal rule

Problems

Structured by

Bureaucracy

Rational rule

Culture

Function

Coercion

Resource

Purpose

Control

Noncontingent and nonnegotiable force to suppress Monopolistic/ Central/ Political/ Ideological Determined by interests Imposed by the police

Supply Availability Executed Application

Empowerment

Demand Self-help

Power justified by situational needs Historical customary norms Contingent and negotiable resource to resolve Pluralistic/ Local/ Social/ Personal Determined by morality Sought out by the public

Table 1.4 : Traditional CP Orientation v. Traditional SRT Orientation (Wong 2009, 37-39)

A Paradigm Shift: Victor E. Kappeler To Kappeler, community policing truly is a paradigm shift from traditional policing (Kappeler 2011). While community policing employs a number of strategies and tactics, the essence of community policing is that it is the glue that holds these strategies and tactics by expanding the traditional police mandate of fighting crime to forming partnerships with the citizenry that endorse mutual support and participation. His theory delineates this progressive approach, combining the accrued wisdom and experience with the latest research-based insights to facilitate application. Additionally, he explores the fragmentation of authority and emphasises the importance of partnerships among the numerous law enforcement agencies, government agencies, and private social service agencies. Finally, he emphasised that four major facets must be kept in mind during the implementation of community policing - a philosophical facet, an organizational and personal facet, a strategic facet and a programmatic facet.

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

35

Contingency Theory: Lawrence & Lorsch The contingency theory was first proposed by Lawrence and Lorsch in the year 1967. They specifically emphasized that “different environments place different requirements on organisations”. They placed emphasis on the environments marked by uncertainty and rapid change in market conditions and technological areas since these environments present varied demands, both positive and negative, in comparison to relatively stable environments. The theory asserts that not accounting for the specific features of the environment a programme is to be implemented in is one important reason for the failure in importing and implementing community policing programmes (Küçükuysal and Beyhan 2011). The general orienting hypothesis of the theory suggests that design decisions depend on environmental conditions, meaning that organisations need to adapt their internal features to the demands of their environments in order to achieve the best results. In other words, the “driving force behind organisational change is the external environment, particularly the task environment with which an organisation is confronted” (Jihong 2003, 5). Scott draws our attention to two assumptions proposed by Galbraith underlying the contingency theory, and adds a third one himself. The following assumptions, which constitute the central premise of the contingency theory, can be utilised to address the problems encountered in the implementation of community policing programmes: i. There is no one best way to organise. ii. Any way of organising is not equally effective. iii. The best way to organise depends on the nature of the environment to which the organisation relates (Scott 2002). The first assumption challenges the traditional view that certain general rules and principles can be applied to organisations in all times and places. In community policing, it is often assumed that community policing has certain guidelines indispensable to an effective community policing programme. While this might be true for the central notions of community policing, such as increasing cooperation between the police and the public and promoting public participation in law enforcement, it is a common misunderstanding that all the guidelines and procedures of a community policing programme can be applied uniformly regardless of time and place. Scott argues that the second assumption challenges the conventional wisdom of early economists that organisational structure is not relevant to organisational performance. Today, it is commonly held that an organisation’s form is associated with its performance. In community policing, however,

36

CHAPTER ONE

the importance of organisational structure is often ignored or underestimated. An effective programme often requires certain changes in the organisational structure of police departments, such as “decentralised decision making and flattened hierarchies.” Adams suggests that community-oriented policing requires two fundamental changes. The first is a reorganisation of the resources of the police department moving away from crime control. This translates to greater emphasis on street patrols and problem-solving efforts coupled with greater officer freedom. The second change refers to a change in the behaviour and expectations of police officers. The third assumption is particularly important in that it explains most of the factors that lead to problems in the implementation and application of the community policing programmes. As emphasised by Scott, organisations are only successful if they effectively adapt to their environments. While implementing a community policing programme, specific features of the environment and characteristics of the community are often not taken into account, thus jeopardising the success of the programme.

The Institutional Theory: J M Wilson Some scholars attempt to compare the contingency theory and the institutional theory to explain the nature of the relationship between police organisations that apply community policing and their environments (Wilson 2005). While “institutional theory suggests that the structure and activities of organisations are responses to the institutional environment, contingency theory suggests that the task environment of an organization (e.g., its size and age, technology, and community characteristics) determines its structure and activities.” (Wilson 2005, 21) Accordingly, the contingency theory approach to community policing suggests that police departments may implement community policing as long as it helps them manage and accomplish their tasks. For instance, if a community is heterogeneous, then the police may become more likely to implement community policing because it would help them meet the needs of diverse residents. The institutional theory, in contrast, suggests that there are some elements that institutional expectations of a police organisation stem from, such as region, civil entities and funding sources, which may in turn exert pressure over the police. This suggests that police departments may implement community policing as long as it meets the institutional expectations of residents. Küçükuysal and Beyhan summarise that contingency theory is of significant value for understanding the nature of the problem associated with the

EXPLAINING COMMUNITY POLICING

37

implementation of community policing programmes; however, the incorporation of a successful synthesis of the institutional theory can make an important contribution to the developed framework (Küçükuysal and Beyhan 2011).

Megadigm Shift: Rohit Choudhary Rohit Choudhary proposes an alternative model to implement the New Police Management (NPM) approach in the Indian police force. By megadigm, he means “a set of changes so deep and profound that they fundamentally alter the way we accept things and our world view.” (Rohit Choudhary 2009, 289) Community policing introduces a new “level” between the public authority and scattered individual citizens, most notably in the form of district or neighbourhood consultation where dialogue or participation is organised and accountability is a natural consequence. Consequently, a new source of re-quests to the police and of bringing the police into action is unearthed. So far, the police were politically responsible to the government or other public authorities and responsible to the individuals merely from an operational point of view. Community policing realigns this traditional sharing of power over the police and establishes a new relationship in the social contract between the police and the society. If communities define the content as well as the priorities of policing, a new political centre of power over the police comes into being - a missing link is discovered. Choudhary presents his megadigm shift for reinventing the police in India by suggesting that the police should be an entrepreneurial department rather than a traditional bureaucracy in the form of Table 1.5 : He concludes with the following observation : “The question will not be how urgently the police is able to react, but how quickly the police is able to generate changes within the organisation, exhibiting flexibility and adaptability, led by a vision and with realistic continuous small steps towards evolution rather than big revolutionary reforms, to reach the required megadigm shift. This would, in s true sense, be the marketing of the police in India” (Rohit Choudhary 2009, 290).

38

CHAPTER ONE

Traditional Orientation Colonial mind set Individual driven Top-down Centralised Autocratic leadership Strict hierarchal structure Lack of clarity of purpose, vision and goal Appraisal as a disciplining tool Poor service quality Accountable to political bosses Decremental response Resource crunch Police ethnocentrism Culture of mistrust and negativism Traditional pedagogical method Unethical conduct Set domain of functioning

After the Megadigm Shift Customer centric New managerialism Employee empowerment Participatory management Servant leadership Linking pin structure Strategic intent and architecture Appraisal for employee development Customer service standards Accountable to the law and the people Strategic management Resource leverage Inter-organizational networks Positive organisational behaviour Andragogy, self-directed learning Workplace spirituality Shaping the future

Table 1.5 : Megadigm Shift for Reinventing the Police (Rohit Choudhary 2009, 290) Having discussed the philosophy, principles, components and theories of community policing, we have analysed the public policy processes in the next chapter and attempted to explain why it is critical for policy makers and the executive to view community policing initiatives from the perspective of public policy.

CHAPTER TWO COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY Like community policing, the concept of public policy has seen its share of intellectual debates. To quote Fischer: “We define policy as a political agreement on a course of action (or inaction) designed to resolve or mitigate problems on the political agenda. This agreement…is an intellectual construct rather than a self-defining phenomenon. Discursively constructed, there can be no inherently unique decisions, institutions, or actors constituting public policy that are to be identified, uncovered, and explained. Public policy, as such, is an analytical category with a substantive content which cannot be simply researched; more fundamentally, it has to be interpreted” (Fischer 2003, 69).

As noted by Fischer, “public policy is a discursive construct rather than a self- defining phenomenon.” Public policy must thus be inferred from the actions and behaviour of the numerous government agencies and officials involved in policy making over time. In common parlance, public policy is understood as a system of lawful principles, regulatory measures, prioritised courses of action and funding options relating to a given issue of mass concern promulgated by a governmental entity or its implementing agency. Public policy is a government initiative intended to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions and actions pertinent to the problem at hand. There are numerous definitions of public policy. Some of them have been quoted and discussed here. Dye is often quoted as saying that public policy is “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye 1972, 18). Dye’s definition takes into account the intentions behind a government action and makes the crucial distinction concerning public policy that government action, legislated and written into law, is but one form of public policy. Another form of public policy includes the many un-codified, un-legislated actions of the government which constitute a strain of public policy in themselves. In other words, the government’s decision to refrain from addressing a particular policy area is essentially public policy; we may refer to it as non-public policy. Public policies are constantly changing as they are shaped,reshaped, modified and changed and sometimes rejected in favour of new policies.

40

CHAPTER TWO

Frederich stretches the definitional issue further and argues that public policy is “A proposed course of action of a person, group or government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or purpose” (Frederich1963, 79).

Dodd, in a similar vein, defines public policy as “commitment to a course or plan of action agreed to by a group of people with the power to carry it out” (Dodd et al. 1997, 2). Daneke and Steissemphasise the available alternatives to public policy and regard it as a broad guide to present and future decisions, done in light of the given conditions from a number of perspectives; the actual decision or set of decisions designed to carry out the chosen course of actions - a projected program consisting of desired objectives (goals) and the means of achieving them (Daneke and Steiss 1978). In the words of Stephen Brooks, “public policy is the broad framework of ideas and values within which decisions are taken and action, or inaction, is pursued by governments in relation to some issue or problem” (Brooks 1989, 16). With these definitions, the broad idea of public policy is brought to the fore. To put it succinctly, public policy is a choice or decision made by the government, in the best interests of the people at large, that guides subsequent attempts at problem solving. The aforementioned definitions tend to convey that public policies result from decisions made by government. Governments enjoy a pivotalrole in public policy-making due to their unique ability to make authoritative decisions, on behalf of their citizens, which are backed up by legislated laws, rules and regulations as well as sanctions for offenders in the event of non-compliance. Thomas Dye’s definition also highlights the fact that public policy-making involves a fundamental choice on the part of governments to do something or to do nothing about a problem, and that decision is made by elected representatives or government officials while guarding against its unintended consequences. Governments often make policies based on a series of decisions that cumulatively contribute to an outcome. Public policy tends to assume that agencies (legitimate authority to take decisions), specified means (for achieving goals), programmes (authorised means for achieving goals), decisions (specified actions taken to implement visions) and effects (the measurable impact) are linked together (Jones 1984). These various interrelated decisions are often made by different individuals and agencies within the government such as the Cabinet, Ministries of Home Affairs or Social Welfare and even Correctional Services Departments.

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

41

A major aspect of public policy is legislation. In a general sense, the law includes specific legislation and more broadly defined provisions of constitutional and international agreements. Public policy is commonly embodied in constitutions, legislative acts and judicial decisions. There are many ways that the law can influence how the public are treated by the police and the types of services the former receive. Numerous issues can be addressed by public policy. These include crime, community safety, public order, education, foreign policy, health and social welfare. In democracies as opposed to other forms of government, individuals and groups often attempt to shape public policy through education, advocacy or mobilisation of interest groups. Nonetheless, the process invariably involves efforts by competing interest groups to influence policy makers in their favour. Shaping public policy is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of numerous individuals and interest groups competing and collaborating to influence policymakers to act in a particular way. When public policies are created, there are generally three key entities involved in the process: the problem, the player and the policy. The problem is the issue that needs to be addressed and the player is the individual or group instrumental in forming a plan to address the problem in question. These individuals and groups use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents and mobilising allies on a particular issue. The policy, the third entity, is the finalised course of action decided upon by the government. Typically, the general public will make the government aware of an issue through letters, emails or phone calls to local government leaders or the media for publicity. The issue is then brought forward during government meetings and the process for creating new public policies begins.

Policy Processes, Components and Phases Public policy development is an iterative process, rather than a linear one. There are five key phases which culminatein the public policy: i. The emergence of a problem that requires the attention of the public and decision makers. ii. Placing this problem on the government’s agenda in order to find a solution. iii. The formulation of various alternatives to resolve the problem. iv. The adoption of a policy. v. The implementation and evaluation of the policy.

42

CHAPTER TWO

In reality, the process is less orderly than this: the idea of a “cycle” facilitates more organised thinking about policy. The policy cycle links a variety of key players in the policy process through their involvement in the various stages. Individuals, institutions and agencies involved in the policy process are called “actors”. The government is often thought of as the only entity involved in policy making. In fact, although the government does have the ultimate decision making and funding power, there are many other actors that contribute to public policy, often in a network which the government relies on for the delivery of complex policy goals. The briefs of this network of actors are set out below: i. Government: Social control of behaviour; power of coercion. ii. Cabinet: Monopoly over the supply of legislation; locus of power with a few people making decisions. iii. Public Servants: Technical knowledge and policy advice; service providers. iv. Political Parties: Develop relationships in exchange for political support. v. Media: Report information to the public; generate interest and shape public opinion. vi. Interest Groups: Seek to advance interests of their members; can have a major influence and force the policy network to react. vii. Legal system: Interprets laws while acting independently. viii. Public: Elects government, forms opinions, joins interest groups and coalitions and relies on the media for information. Allison, in his seminal work on the Cuban Missile Crisis, has set out a deep understanding of how decisions emerge within the government. This is referred to as Allison’s Model (Allison 1971). Allison expanded the rational actor model (that presumes the government to be a monolith) by supplementing it with two other models: the organisational process model and the government politics model. The decisions of the government are the outcome of the conjoined operation of all three models (Ayyar 2009, 126). We have discussed this in detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. The process to create a new public policy typically follows three steps: agenda-setting, option-formulation and implementation; the timeline for a new policy to be put in place can range from a few weeks to several years, depending on the situation. At the agenda-setting stage, agencies and government officials meet to discuss the problem at hand. In the second stage, option-formulation, alternative solutions are considered and final decisions are made as regards the best policy. Consequently, the decided policy is implemented during the final stage. In most cases, once public

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

43

policies are in place, they are widely open to interpretation by nongovernmental players, including those in the private sector, media, parties in opposition, judiciary and the intelligentsia. When does a policy problem get picked up for policy making amidst the multitude of problems that require the attention of the government? Why are some of these problems chosen while others are not? Does it invariably transpire that “an idea whose time has come” gets translated to a policy? John F. Kingdon studied these aspects extensively and came out with what is known as the “Kingdon Schema”. In his words “A policy problem is chosen for decision making when a problem is recognised, a solution is available, the political climate makes time ripe for change, and the constraints do not prohibit action” (Kingdon 1995, 91).

Or, to use the relevant jargon, the window of opportunity, the “policy window”, is open when the three disparate streams of problem, solution and politics come together. “Policy entrepreneurs” wait for an opportune moment to push their ideas on problems and preferred solutions through; some of them are ingenious enough to create these opportune moments (Kingdon 1995). Some of the theories of public policy relevant to our study have been dealt in the latter sections of this chapter. The “policy environment” comprises both the operating environment within an organisation and the external environment in which the organisation is embedded. “The elements of environment are actors (organization, interest group, and individuals), structural and institutional factors, and the ‘ruling idea’ which condition the policy thinking.” (Kingdon 1995, 22)

Strategic and skilful public policy management can make the policy sustainable. Public policy management is a process unique to democratic forms of government, where those in power must answer to their constituencies. While public policy management may not be successful in all cases, those organisations and initiatives with a strategy against possible stakes and strains are more likely to see positive results for their causes. Most strategies involving public policy management include a multi-pronged effort specifically focused on the legislative and regulatory processes. This translates into having provisions for monitoring and tracking legislation for changes in rules or laws, researching on issues to determine how the legislation could affect a person or process, lobbying in order to make certain views heard and possibly even the formation of a political action committee.

44

CHAPTER TWO

A comprehensive public policy management strategy could also include meetings and event planning, program management and strategy formulation.

Theories on Public Policy The theories on public policy captured for the purpose of the present review are: i. J. W. Kingdon’s Policy Window ii. Graham T. Allison’s Essence of Decision iii. Herbert A. Simon’s Bounded Rationality iv. Elmore’s Policy Implementation Model v. Charles Edward Lindblom’s Incrementalism vi. J. Q. Wilson’s Politics of Regulation, and vii. R. V. V. Ayyar’s Policy Entrepreneurship and Paradigm Shift The study of these theories gives an insight into the processes involved in policy making from the perspective of the policy makers and practitioners. Policy Window: J. W.Kingdon J. W. Kingdon is the pioneer of the theory of the Policy Window (Kingdon 1995). The Policy Window is an opportunity for advocates to push their pet solutions, or to focus attention on their specific problems. A problem is recognised, a solution is developed and available in the policy community, a political change brings with it an opportune moment for policy change, and potential constraints are not severe. Actors who promote specific solutions are labelled as policy entrepreneurs. Windows open in policy systems as the opportunities for action, on certain given initiatives, present themselves and stay open for short periods. The participants must take advantage or wait for another window. Windows open because of changes in the political stream (which may include a change in administration, a shift in the national mood or a rearrangement of the partisan or ideological distribution of seats in Congress) or because a new problem captures the attention of government officials. The Window closes due to one among various factors which include participants feeling that they have addressed the problem, participants failing to act, events that opened the Window ceasing to have effect, a change in personnel or the mere unavailability of an alternative or solution. Predicting

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

45

a Policy Window is not simple. Features that dictate the availability of a Window range from a change of administration to a renewal or imminent collapse of a major sector of the economy. Kingdon’s multiple streams model offers a sound theoretical framework for analysing and emphasising the process of defining a problem, setting an agenda and selecting policy alternatives. Kingdon does this by conducting a four year study based on hundreds of interviews with policy actors. The central feature of Kingdon’s model is the notion of three streams flowing through the policy system and consisting of problems, policies and politics. According to this metaphor, all three streams must be present for the policymaking process to move to the legislation development phase. The problem stream contains information about policy problems. Information comes from sources such as indicators, dramatic events or crises and feedback from existing programs. Many actors in the media and the government are constantly gathering information on conditions that may represent problems. These actors seek to identify the existence of conditions, potential consequences of conditions and trends in conditions over a period of time. According to Kingdon, problems can be illuminated through feedback which comes from the systematic monitoring of programmes, complaints and casework, and through the daily bureaucratic administration of programmes. When issues are not “hot”, advocates are extreme; when the issue becomes prominent, advocates become more flexible and compromise to stay relevant.

Essence of Decision: Graham T. Allison A deep understanding of how decisions emerge from within the government is provided by the seminal work of Allison on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Allison 1971). Allison’s contribution lies in enhancing the explanatory power of the rational actor model (Model I) by supplementing it with two models: the organisational process model (Model II) and the government politics model (Model III), and in positing that decisions of the government are the outcome of the conjoined operation of Models I, II and III. Rational Actor Model (Model I) This model presumes the government to be a monolithic, unitary, rational actor, analysing every problem encountered with the utmost rationality,

46

CHAPTER TWO

rationally defining problems and identifying public interest, identifying every policy option, choosing the most efficient option, and implementing the chosen policy with the utmost efficiency. Allison pointed out that the “rational actor” model continues to be applied even in long-term analyses (i.e., analyses that take place long after the event or “crisis” has passed). In the Essence of Decision, Allison suggests that one reason for the popularity of rational actor models is that compared to the other models, it requires relatively little data and provide researchers with an “inexpensive approximation” of the situation. Organisational process model (Model II) Contrary to what Model I posits, the government is not a unitary actor; rather, it is a constellation of departments. Each department involved in policy development is a player in its own right. Thus, government decisionmaking is not the outcome of the rational calculations of a single actor but of reconciling the differences in the views of the organisations that together constitute the government. Government politics model (Model III) In the government, decisions are taken mainly at three levels: individual departments, cabinet committees and the government as a whole (the Cabinet). The ministers and the key officials are the key “players” in the decision-making process. All the players, no doubt, are influenced by the department’s rationality. Mile’s Law is of near-universal validity. The law states that where you stand depends on where you sit. We see things and form judgments of things from our own perspective. We need to discipline ourselves to see things from another’s vantage point. Allison proposed the following propositions for this model: i.

“A nation’s actions are best understood as the result of politicking and negotiation by its top leaders. ii. Even if they share a goal, leaders differ in how to achieve it because of such factors as personal interests and background. iii. Even if a leader holds absolute power (i.e., the President of the United States is technically also the commander-in-chief), the leader must gain a consensus with his underlings or risk having his order misunderstood or, in some cases, ignored. iv. Related to the above proposition, the make-up of a leader’s entourage will have a large effect on the final decision (i.e., an entourage of “yes

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

47

men” will create a different outcome than a group of advisors who are willing to voice disagreement). v. Leaders have different levels of power based on charisma, personality, skills of persuasion, and personal ties to decision-makers. vi. If a leader is certain enough, they will not seek input from their advisors, but rather, approval. Likewise, if a leader has already implicitly decided on a particular course of action, an advisor wishing to have influence must work within the framework of the decision the leader has already made. vii. If a leader fails to reach a consensus with his inner circle (or, at least, the appearance of a consensus), opponents may take advantage of these disagreements. Therefore, effective leaders must create a consensus. viii. Because of the possibilities of miscommunication, misunderstandings, and downright disagreements, different leaders may take actions that the group as a whole would not approve of” (Allison 1971).

The government politics model is recognition of the fact that democratic politics is a contest among different interests and ideas and is resolved through either compromise or electoral contest. As electoral contest cannot be resorted to too often, compromise “is the true gospel of democratic politics”. (Wilson 2001, 495)

Bounded Rationality: Herbert A. Simon The theory of bounded rationality was proposed by Herbert A. Simon (Simon 1997; Simon 1982). Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-

Figure 2.1 : Simon’s Bounded Rationality

48

CHAPTER TWO

making, the rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision. This theory emerged as an alternative basis for the mathematical modelling of decision making, as used in economics and related disciplines.It complements the notion of rationality as optimisation, which views decision-making as a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice, given the information available. Another way to look at bounded rationality is that because decisionmakers lack the ability and the resources to arrive at an optimal solution, they instead apply their rationality only after having significantly simplified the choices available. Thus the decision-maker is a “satisficer”, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one. Simon used the analogy of a pair of scissors, where one blade represented the “cognitive limitations” of actual humans and the other the “structures of the environment”; minds with limited cognitive resources can thus be successful by exploiting preexisting structures and regularities in the environment. Simon’s 3 stages in Rational Decision Making include Intelligence, Design and Choice (IDC). In Models of Man (Simon 1957), Simon points out that most people are only partly rational and are emotional/irrational in the residual partsof their actions. In another work, he states “boundedly rational agents experience limits in formulating and solving complex problems and in processing (receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting) information”. Gerd Gigerenzer (Gigerenzer 2001) argues that most decision theorists who have discussed bounded rationality have not really followed Simon’s ideas about it. Rather, they have either considered how people’s decisions might be made sub-optimal by the limitations of human rationality, or have constructed elaborate optimising models of how people might cope with their inability to optimise. Gigerenzer instead proposes to examine simple alternatives to a full rationality analysis as a mechanism for decision-making, and he and his colleagues have shown that such simple heuristics frequently lead to better decisions than the theoretically optimal procedure. From a computational point of view, decision-making procedures can be encoded in algorithms and heuristics. Edward Tsang (Tsang 2008) argues that the effective rationality of an agent is determined by its computational intelligence. Everything else being equal, an agent that has better algorithms and heuristics could make “more rational” (more optimal) decisions than one that has poorer heuristics and algorithms.

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

49

Incrementalism: Charles Edward Lindblom Lindblom introduced the concept of incrementalism to realistically describe the process by which decisions are actually made by the government. Since its introduction nearly five decades ago, incrementalism has enjoyed widespread acceptance and has come to acquire several connotations. In popular terms, incremental has come to mean taking a few small steps at a time. Though incrementalism is associated with a conservative approach to decision-making, there is nothing in the concept that prevents many large steps being taken together when the situation warrants, and when the policy makers have the requisite confidence that there is sufficient knowledge. Lindblom advocates the theory of incrementalism in policy and decisionmaking. This view (also called Gradualism) takes a “baby-steps”, “Muddling Through” or “Echternach Theory” approach to decision-making processes. In it, policy change is, under most circumstances, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. He came to this view through his extensive studies of welfare policies and trade unionism throughout the industrialised world. According to Lindblom, no single, monolithic elite controls government and society. Rather, a series of specialised elites compete and bargain with one another for control. It is this peaceful competition and compromise between elites in politics and the marketplace that drives free-market democracy and allows it to thrive.

Elmore’s Implementation Models A policy is as good as its implementation; a policy cannot be developed in isolation from the means of its implementation. Richard Elmore adapted Allison’s models of implementation. (Elmore 1978). Viewing implementation through the prism of these models facilitates the enhancement of the quality of such implementation. Elmore’s Model I (System Management Model) corresponds to Allison’s rational actor model. This model stresses rigour in planning, allocation of tasks to sub-units and functionaries, adequate allocation of resources and delegation of power commensurate with responsibility, ensuring accountability through laying down clear, measurable performance standards, and an adequate mechanism of control and supervision to monitor and enforce performance.

50

CHAPTER TWO

Elmore’s Model II (Bureaucratic Model) and Model III (Organisational Development Model) corresponds to Allison’s organisational process model. While Model II addresses the material aspect of implementation, Model III deals with its psychological aspects. Model II proceeds from the premise that the street-level bureaucracy which actually implements policies and programmes at the grassroots has an irreducible discretion and adopts a routine to discharge duties. The routine it adopts may vary from the SOPs laid down by the organisation and the programme guidelines. For the beneficiaries of programmes, the street-level bureaucrat is the government and any variance of the operating routine from the policy/programme guidelines means that the outcomes may not correspond to those intended. Elmore’s Model III addresses the psychological needs of implementers, the street-level bureaucrats. Human beings are creatures of habit; the streetlevel bureaucrats, therefore, may resist any change in the routine or reduction of discretion that a new policy/programme may require. Thus, implementers value autonomy and control over their work, and participation in decisions affecting their work and career. This model seeks to enhance motivation and commitment through consultation in policy/programme development, framing guidelines that incorporate the useful suggestions offered during consultations, and offer of incentives. Ideally, the process of initiating and implementing a new policy should begin at the bottom and end at the top. Elmore’s Model IV (Conflicting and Bargaining Model) corresponds to Allison’s government politics model. Contrary to what is generally assumed, all the subunits and key functionaries in an organisation do not share commonality of purpose; this makes it necessary to reconcile competing perceptions and views. Allison (decision Making) Model I: Rational Actor Model

Variables Government is a monolith, unitary, rational actor. Policy formulation is a unidirectional, linear process, choosing of the most efficient alternative

Elmore Implementation Model I: Systems Management Model

Variables Managers are rational actors; Planning, allocation of tasks, resources, delegation, accountability, control and supervision.

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

Model II: Organisation al Process Model

Government is not an unitary actor, rather a constellation of departments, each with its own identity, interests and priorities.

Model II:Bureaucratic Model And Model III: Organisational Development Model

Model III: Government Policies Model

Decisions in government taken at three levels: departments, cabinet committees and the cabinet (Mile’s Law; Lindblom’sincr ementalism)

Model IV: Conflicting and Bargaining Model

51

Managers are not unitary actors; Material and psychologicalas pect of implementation with street level bureaucrats use discretion; variance from SOPs, autonomy, control, motivation of the implementers. Functionaries in an organisation do not share commonality; competing perceptions and views are to be reconciled.

Table 2.1 : Decision-making and Implementation in Government: Comparative Study of Allison’s & Elmore’s Models and Concepts (as conceptualized by the authors)

The Politics of Regulation: J. Q Wilson James Q. Wilson has constructed a typology of policies based largely upon the extent to which benefits and costs are concentrated or diffuse, a distinction somewhat akin to economists’ conceptions of jointness in goods. The Wilson typology is intended to explain the politics of policy, but the basic idea involved is also applicable to more substantive issues about policy problems. That basic idea is that problems that entail collective action and produce diffuse benefits may be more difficult to solve than those problems

52

CHAPTER TWO

for which the benefits are more immediate and more appropriable by individuals. The reasons for this increased difficulty are fundamentally political, and relate to generating and maintaining support for policies that yield only indirect benefits to particular constituencies. In politics, however, the nature of the goods being produced may not be as firmly established as economists would tend to believe. In that regard, a fundamental question for the political entrepreneur advocating government action to address a problem requiring the development of public goods is to construct the issue as if the goods were less indivisible and hence of greater benefit to individual constituencies. Different types of policy imply different types of politics. This typology, by James Q. Wilson (Wilson 1973), focuses on the distribution of costs and benefits of policies, distributions which can either be concentrated or diffuse. These costs and benefits are not necessarily monetary but, instead, indicate decreases or increases in individuals’ stocks of one or more different values. Putting the diffuse or concentrated costs and diffuse or concentrated benefits together results in the following two-by-two table: Benefits of Regulation Concentrated

Dispersed

Costs of Regulation Concentrated Dispersed Client politics (the Interest group politics: Argumentsover specific only case in which kinds of regulation (e.g. Olsonian collective RR freight rate regulation action should work) or telecommunications, or e.g. import wage bargaining in public restrictions, lobbying sector). Both sides can for tax breaks, easily mobilize. lobbying for targeted funds. Entrepreneurial Majoritarian politics: (class action politics (pure suits against concentrated appeals to public interests. What benefit to goods?) lawyer?) public smoking bans. restricting tobacco sales; tax cuts in general?

Table 2.2 : Wilson Matrix (Wilson 1973, 331-337) An example of concentrated benefits and concentrated costs is a change in labour law; say something like “card check,” a battle of considerable importance to labour unions and companies who might be faced with

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

53

unionisation efforts, but an issue that is of little or no interest to most people. One can expect that this card check face-off will be largely confined to the labour and business sectors and their political allies in Congress and the presidency, but that the general public is not likely to become involved even though both the union and business factions will try to mobilize sympathy. On the other hand, agricultural price supports, for which all consumers and taxpayers pay (if only in unrecognisable amounts), concentrate their benefits on farmers and associated businesses who are motivated to fight for them but because consumers don’t feel the pinch of these costs (a penny here, a penny there), little opposition arises; this example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs is equivalent to Lowi’s “distributive policy”. The bottom line of these efforts to develop policy typologies (i.e., these efforts to classify policies in terms of important distinguishing characteristics) is that there is not one policymaking process, no single pattern of political behaviours that are associated with every policy. Instead, policy processes are impacted, if only in part, by specific characteristics of the public policy under focus.

Paradigm Shift: R. V. V.Ayyar To Ayyar, a paradigm is a thinking pattern, a set of ideas, practices, values and beliefs which conditions policy thinking as a whole (Ayyar2011). The idea of Paradigm Shift was introduced by Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn 1970). A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has to been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn’s view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on the features of the landscape of knowledge scientists can identify around them. The concept of paradigm shift-the displacement of one paradigm by another -- has been extended to many fields, including technological innovation. “A policy paradigm prescribes the normative framework within which policies are developed. Or, to put it in other words, a policy paradigm provides the focusing devices that exclude some possibilities and prescribe some others. The concept of paradigm is similar to that of hegemony of ideas” (Ayyar 2011, 102).

54

CHAPTER TWO

Ayyar further goes on to argue that the vocabulary of policy and political discourse explicitly shifts to the new paradigm only after the changes gain widespread acquiescence, if not acceptance, and the process of adjustment gains momentum. From then onwards, the real issue would hinge on the interpretation and application of the new para-digm, and the pace of adjustment to the new paradigm, though the tussle may be represented by critics as a contest between the old and new para-digms. In the politics of policy, as in human affairs in general, what matters is not rhetoric but actions (Ayyar 2011). He suggests that old paradigms of conventional wisdom over time culminate in doubts and anomalies well within them and in due course, engender new paradigms so that the new paradigms overcome the old contestations over interpretation. Ayyar prefers the term Policy entrepreneurship. “Policy entrepreneurs wait for an opportune moment to push their ideas about problems and preferred solutions. Entrepreneurship encompasses both psychological and competency aspects. The psychological aspects include the passion to achieve and be distinctive, perseverance, and the willingness to take risks and responsibility. The competency required for policy entrepreneurship encompasses: innovative approach to characterisation of policy problems, innovative approach to resolution of policy problems, the ability to translate that approach into coherent policy proposal, a good assessment of situational context, a good knowledge of the system and the skills needed to push the policy proposal through the system” (Ayyar 2009, 121-122).

Community Policing from Public Policy Perspective Community policing is the need of the hour and police forces in democracies around the world are realising its utility and implementing community policing initiatives in varied forms. As an innovation to police organisation and philosophy, community policing has come to the fore. From the United States to Great Britain, and encompassing Brazil, South Africa, Singapore and Japan, numerous countries have adopted various forms of community policing, with the core philosophy remaining universal. A recent document from the United Nations (UNO 2011) suggests that the five components essential for the successful reformation of a policy are: political consensus, social engagement, broad police support, reliable data and bureaucratic cooperation. i. Political Consensus: Political consensus, as it relates to the police

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

55

forces, is a general agreement among core political actors in a particular police jurisdiction. It is extremely difficult for a government to undertake major security reforms while being attacked by a powerful opposition party. A lack of political consensus can also create substantial tensions within the State apparatus and undermine reform. The police can take the lead in suggesting broad strategies and frameworks for reform using their expertise in building a wider consensus within the government and political parties. Additionally, politicians must engage and work to build a consensus across parties for a public safety policy consistent with good practices and social needs. ii. Social Engagement: Social engagement means active participation of individual citizens and civic groups in policy development and implementation. Social engagement helps to maintain a political consensus and also acts as an external check on the implementation of policy by police (O’Donnell 1998; Peruzzotti and Smulovitz 2006). This helps to ensure that the police effectively implement policy, curb the various strains of corruption and abuse and help control the involvement of State security forces in wider inter-group violence and the vigilantism that may occur in high crime localities. The engagement of social groups in reform efforts can also help improve police response and can create pressures to maintain programmes after a government has left office (Moncada 2009). Engagement across such conditions requires sophistication on the part of government officials and proactive strategies to promote participation by communities, local organisations, private security firms and civil society in reform efforts. iii. Broad police support: No reform effort will succeed without some form of backing across different ranks and elements of the police. At the highest levels, police leaders need to establish a policy direction and impose a system of hierarchical accountability to ensure that their subordinates implement a programme. Tactical commanders must understand the application of a policy and ensure that the police on the street actually implement the policy. This does not mean that every member of a police force must agree with a policy but that support and training must be provided at different levels in order to develop the relationships that are necessary for changes to succeed. iv. Reliable Information: Effective policing involves having adequate information about criminal activity in order to develop strategies

56

CHAPTER TWO

to control crime. Developing the information requires the expertise of the police and of the broader criminal justice community to collect and manage data. The data must be targeted for use by a particular police force, according to its capabilities and the types of crimes occurring within its jurisdiction. The police should devise a variety of different strategies appropriate to local conditions so as to gather knowledge and develop responses. One key prerequisite to developing and analysing information is the promotion of ties between the police and scholars. Criminologists and other social science professionals often have the theoretical and practical knowledge necessary to devise, implement and improve information-gathering and strategising programmes. v. Bureaucratic Cooperation: Effective policing also involves strong relationships of the police with other State agencies such as prosecutors and sectors of the prison and rehabilitation systems. At the same time, police contacts must go beyond the criminal justice system into schools, social welfare agencies and other segments of the State in order to reach out to different parts of society and help develop policies that address the needs of specific segments of the population with a view to preventing crime, reducing recidivism rates and minimising the need for police action (UNO 2011). The thematic focus in literature on community policing from the public policy perspective centres around the following broad areas: organisational strategy including structural re-arrangements, training, budgeting and internal change; commitment to community empowerment, decentralised and personalised policing; ethics, legality, responsibility and trust, realising the goals amidst challenges to community policing, criticism of community policing and a critique of critiques.

Organisational Strategy Community policing has three common features: police-community partnerships, a problem-solving approach and organisational decentralisation (Oliver 1998). Williams suggests that previous attempts to introduce innovative change in police organisations have failed to endure, primarily because it has not been well understood by police executives that supportive structural changes are essential to institutionalising behavioural change (Williams 2003). Community policing is both a philosophy (a way of

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

57

thinking) and an organisational strategy (a way to execute this philosophy) that allows the police and the community to work closely together in creative ways to solve the problems of crime, illicit drugs, fear of crime, physical and social disorder (from graffiti to addiction), neighbourhood decay, and the overall quality of life in the community. The philosophy rests on the belief that people deserve insight into the policing process, in exchange for their participation and support (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). Adopting community policing as the organisational philosophy does not signal the abandonment of the traditional response-based, investigative police function. Rather, a balance must be struck between the competing demands of emergency calls and rapid response situations on one hand (which will not simply disappear with the introduction of community policing) and the increased focus on community-based, proactive policing. Recruitment should focus on the spirit of service (Brown 1989). The maximum benefit may be best achieved through an approach which combines the two philosophies (Edwards 1999). As community policing did not develop in a vacuum, other policing strategies such as intelligenceled policing and problem-oriented policing have simultaneously emerged (Prenzler and Sarre 2002). Community policing is a strategy that can operate successfully when implemented with other complementary strategies. Work plans (Williams2003) delegate responsibility, decentralised decision-making and authority, and empower individuals while requiring teamwork (cooperation, communication, and collaboration between responsible units and between the police and the community). Work plans ensure accountability at the individual level, the unit level, the division level, and the organisational level because work plans are centred on involvement in community policing initiatives as a part of routine police work. These work plans enforce commitment to applying community policing problem-solving strategies by enforcing goal achievement. Thus, with community policing as the central paradigm, it is possible to implement initiatives and strategies that allow for the building of partnerships (with the flow on effects of increasing intelligence and a greater understanding of the community context) that, for instance, in turn translates into intelligence-led policing strategies (Ratcliffe 2003).

Training Williams suggests that training is critical as it shifts the focus from output (numbers) to outcome (effectiveness) (Williams 2003). The majority of order

58

CHAPTER TWO

maintenance tasks require extra-legal initiatives that include not only problem-solving skills but extensive knowledge of cultural diversity, the history of the groups involved, leadership and community service skills (Wulff 2000). If community policing is not taught at the local police academy, it needs to be introduced in the organisation’s advanced academy curriculum and become an integral part of field training (Harvey 1999). Breen maintains that without consideration for these important structural behavioural determinants, “the likelihood of community policing having a long-term impact on American law enforcement is questionable.” (Breen 1997, 16)

Budgeting Some scholars touch the budgeting dimension (Williams2003) to include program budgeting structures in accountability not only for the system and process as a whole, but for individual decision makers as well. This budgeting process requires a change from annual line item budgeting to incremental program-based budgeting. Choudhary emphasises the provision of onpayment services and spreading costs to other authorities for managing resource crunches (Choudhary 2009).

Internal Change Previous attempts at introducing innovative change in police organisations have failed to endure primarily because it has not been well understood by police executives that supportive structural changes are essential to institutionalising behavioural change. Community policing adds a vital, proactive element to the traditional reactive role of the police, resulting in full-spectrum policing services. As the only agency of social control open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the police must maintain the ability to respond immediately to crises and crime incidents, but community policing broadens the police’s role so that they can have a greater impact on making changes today that hold the promise of making communities safer and more attractive places to live tomorrow (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1990; Choudhary 2009). Community policing must be a fully integrated approach that involves everyone in the department, with community policing officers serving as generalists who bridge the gap between the police and the people they serve. The community policing approach plays a crucial role internally by providing information about and

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

59

hence raising awareness of the community and its problems, and by enlisting broad-based community support for the department’s overall objectives. Once community policing is accepted as the long-term strategy, all officers should practice it. This could take as long as ten to fifteen years. Community policing is a progressive step toward institutionalising the flexibility that will enable modern police organisations to continue to align their operations with changing social condition (Williams 2003).

Commitment to Community Empowerment Community policing promotes the judicious use of technology, but it also rests on the belief that nothing surpasses what dedicated human beings, communicating and working collaboratively, can achieve (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). It invests trust in those who are on the frontlines together on the street, and relies on their combined judgment, wisdom and experience to fashion creative new approaches to contemporary community concerns. Community policing’s organisational strategy first demands that everyone in the police department, including both civilian and sworn personnel, must explore ways to translate the philosophy of power-sharing into practice. This demands a subtle but sophisticated shift so that everyone in the department understands the need to focus on solving community problems in creative ways that can include challenging and enlightening people in the process of policing themselves. Community policing implies a shift within the department that grants greater autonomy (freedom to make decisions) to line officers, which also implies enhanced respect for their judgment as police professionals. Within the community, citizens must share in the rights and responsibilities implicit in identifying, prioritising, and solving problems, as full-fledged partners with the police (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990).

Decentralised and Personalised Policing Community policing provides decentralised, personalised police services to the community. It recognises that the police cannot impose order on the community from the outside, but that people must be encouraged to think of the police as a resource that they can use to help solve contemporary community concerns (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). It is not a tactic to be applied and then abandoned. Indeed, it is a new philosophy and an

60

CHAPTER TWO

organisational strategy that provides the flexibility to meet local needs and priorities as they change over time. To implement true community policing, police departments must also create and develop a new breed of line officer who acts as a direct link between the police and the people in the community. As the department’s community outreach specialists, community policing officers must be freed from the isolation of the patrol car and the demands of the police radio so that they can maintain daily, direct, face-to-face contact with the people they serve in a clearly defined beat area. Ultimately, all officers should practice the community policing approach. Decentralisation of decision making, i.e., pushing decision making down to the lowest level of responsibility, and power sharing do not necessarily equate to “flattening” the organisation by reducing the number of middle managers. Adopting agencies are finding that de-bureaucratisation can be expressed as well through collaborative decision making and lateral communication networks (Williams 2003). In this way, the organisation becomes mission-driven rather than rule-driven (Williams 2003). The community policing officer’s broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law-abiding people in the community, so that they may collaboratively explore creative new solutions to local concerns, with private citizens serving as supporters and as volunteers (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). As law enforcement officers, community policing officers respond to calls for service and make arrests, but they also go beyond this narrow focus to develop and monitor broad-based, long-term initiatives that ideally involve all elements of the community in efforts to improve the quality of life. As the community’s ombudsman, the community policing officer also acts as a link to other public and private agencies that can help in a given situation.

Ethics, Legality, Responsibility and Trust Community policing implies a new contract between the police and the citizens they serve, one that offers hope of overcoming widespread apathy while at the same time, restraining any nascent impulse of vigilantism (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). This new relationship, based on mutual trust and respect, also suggests that the police can serve as a catalyst, by challenging people to accept their share of responsibility for the overall quality of life in the community. Community policing means that citizens will be asked to handle more of their minor concerns themselves. In exchange, this will free up the police to work with people on developing

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

61

immediate as well as long-term solutions for community concerns in ways that encourage mutual accountability and respect. Community policing demands helping those with special needs. Community policing stresses exploring new ways to protect and enhance the lives of those who are most vulnerable - juveniles, the elderly, minorities, the poor, the disabled and the homeless (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1990). It both assimilates and broadens the scope of previous outreach efforts such as crime prevention and police community relations. Where the community lacks representation, capacity-building efforts must be adopted if it is to become an effective partner. Such capacity-building, however, would take the police, in particular, well beyond its traditional role of law enforcement (Mastrowski 1995). Some researchers have suggested that police and community priorities can conflict in significant and damaging ways (Winship and Berrien 1999). Research falls roughly into two groups (Thacher 2001). On one hand, some scholars draw pessimistic conclusions from the idea that police and community values may conflict. Most radically, Peter Manning has suggested that community policing is fundamentally flawed partly because police and community values are fundamentally incompatible (Manning1993). On a more moderate note, some researchers imply that although some community organisations may be viable partners to the police, others are unlikely to develop strong relationships with police because their goals are incompatible with the police mission (Lovig and Skogan 1995; Podolefsky 1984). Whatever their explicit conclusions, none of these studies directly investigate how the police might cope with value conflict, and for that reason they tend to suggest that the problem is intractable. In contrast with this relatively pessimistic perspective, a few researchers have acknowledged the significance of value conflict but have suggested that the police can sometimes overcome it by developing innovative police practices (Meares and Kahan1998).

Realising the Goals Amidst Challenges to Community Policing Attempts to implement community policing to date have drawn attention to some key stumbling blocks that present challenges to policing organisations for the future development and implementation of community policing initiatives (Segrave and Ratcliffe 2004). Three central issues remain. Working with the community is less straightforward in practice than many policing organisations anticipate (Segrave and Ratcliffe 2004). Future initiatives need to identify this and allocate substantial resources to enable

62

CHAPTER TWO

officers to work closely with communities so as to engage a broad range of community groups and members. Officers require extensive training to counter community unwillingness to participate and to undertake consultation. Consultation with the public is a marked shift away from traditional policing practice and this is often difficult for officers to undertake, particularly in terms of relinquishing past responsibilities and control to other agencies or community groups (Sarre 1997). Achieving community partnerships, especially within disadvantaged communities that are affected the most by crime, demands changes within the organisation to encourage and enable police officers to adopt new policing practices and enable greater engagement with the public (Cameron and Laycock 2002). Mohanty, in one of his policy papers, lists out a number of legal and institutional challenges to Community Policing such as a rigid para-military structure, an endemic resistance to change, under paid and untrained staff, low police to population ratio, the intimidating and hostile atmosphere at the police station and conflicts with procedural law (Mohanty 2012b). Jiao addresses core issues to realise the goals of community-oriented policing. First, “the police must decentralise their organizational structure and shift command responsibility to lower rank levels” (Jiao 1998, 294). It is also important for police departments to establish community based crime prevention programs, which involve commitment to the community, external and internal communication, and mobilisation of community resources. Jiao suggests that community policing requires that police organizations should broaden the scope of the roles of the police officers and engage in more proactive activities. The underlying philosophy of the community-based approach suggests that the role of the police is not confined to law enforcement and the prevention of crime. Police officers should also maintain order and provide community services in collaboration with the residents of the community. Various authors have stressed the need for community policing because the police acting in isolation cannot prevent crime (Skolnick and Bayley 1991; Bayley 1994) and the future of police work is dependent on public cooperation (Greene 1993a; Trojanowicz 1994). Wilson and Kelling referred to the “Broken Windows” idea (Wilson and Kelling 1993). Once a neighbourhood is seen to be decaying, it will attract more crime if nobody does anything to prevent the decay and show that people do care. Moore noted that community policing has become so popular that, if police executives are slow to embrace them, communities will force their ideas upon them (Moore 1994). In his submission to Lord Scarman’s Inquiry, Alderson stated that “Community policing provides the roots for the sound

COMMUNITY POLICING AS PUBLIC POLICY

63

growth of healthy policing” (Alderson 1981, vii). Schaffer, likewise, noted that officers who are involved in the community create an opportunity to make the traditional role of the police more effective, especially if there is a healthy degree of cooperation within the police force itself (Schaffer 1980, 85). As the former Chief of Police of Houston and New York, Brown believed that “in order to make a difference and to get a handle on violence or any other serious problem in the community, the police must form working partnerships within the community” (Brown 1992, 3). Radelet and Carter stated that “The concept does provide a logical, comprehensive approach to police service delivery that relies on a solid foundation of research” (Radelet and Carter 1994, 75). It is seen from the preceding paragraphs that most of the initiatives to institutionalise community policing are to be taken at the level of the government and still others at the organisational level. The police, as an organisation, seems to be comfortable with maintaining status quo and is likely to resist any “civilian intrusion” into its affairs. As Skogan puts it very candidly, “Police have a remarkable ability to wait out efforts to reform them. Police resist the intrusion of civilians into their business” (Skogan 1995, 87). Therefore, it is argued that any community policing initiative should be taken up as a public policy to ensure the commitment of the government insofar as resources are concerned and to “push” forward the desired reforms in the police organisation before or during its implementation.

Why Should Community Policing be Introduced as a Public Policy? A number of police organisations and in many instances individual police leaders have embarked upon pro-active community oriented policing initiatives with an objective of making the police sensitive to the need of the community. However, in the absence of an institutional and legal framework, many such brilliant initiatives have failed to stand the test of time. The community policing initiatives by numerous police organisations are “informal policy processes” that should have been backed by “due process” policy. By “due process”, what is meant is that community policing practices should have been part of the police mission statement duly recognised in the legislations governing police organisations.

64

CHAPTER TWO

A policy is as good as its implementation. In the same logic, it is deduced from our study that the pre-implementation dynamics are as critical as the successful implementation of a policy. An appreciation of preimplementation dynamics helps the policy entrepreneur to have clarity with respect to the “policy environment” i.e., the operating environment within an organisation and the external environment in which the organisation is embedded. Some of the pre-implementation dynamics critical to the successful implementation of community policing, that came out in the course of the field study are the “political will”, “developing trust-community empowerment”, “engaging the stake holders” and “resource planning”. The policy makers and implementers must not only be aware of such dynamics of the policy environment during the pre-implementation phase, but also of the policy contexts and processes during the implementation phase. Examples are the “formulation of Standard Operating Procedure”, “incrementalism” (as a pilot project to start with), “hand-holding”, “agency problem”, “resource augmentation” and “monitoring, control and feedback”. We have attempted to develop a model (Chapter VI) by triangulating the theories and praxis of community policing and public policy, and organising them in a Context-Process-Outcome matrix in respect of preimplementation, implementation and impact phases to serve as guidelines for both the policy makers and implementers in their efforts to introduce community policing as a public policy. In the next chapter, we have highlighted some of the community policing practices of democracies around the world and tried to examine how they have been institutionalised over the years.

CHAPTER THREE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING Community policing is arguably the single most extended paradigm in policing that can be found in one form or other in the official discourse of a majority of policing agencies in the world today. The use of this term to describe either current operations or the goal of reforms is almost universal. Representatives from countries as diverse as Australia, Belgium, China, Russia, India, Ukraine and Zimbabwe all indicated that community policing was central to their future operating philosophy at the 2007 International Police Executives Symposium in Dubai. The aspirations of achieving some form of community policing are common to a wide range of countries, and despite the acknowledged limitations, it continues to be a philosophical touchstone that will be instrumental in determining the future of policing. This chapter examines how the community policing paradigm is implemented in some selected countries and policing cultures, and analyses the similarities and differences in their applications and the processes of institutionalisation. Just as many government departments have been involving and empowering citizens, a similar trend has found a strong manifestation in the police department in the form of community policing. In several cities across the world that have adopted community policing, residents share the responsibility with the police department and help implement crime prevention strategies. Community policing is the need of the hour and police forces in democracies across the world are realising its utility and implementing community policing initiatives in varied forms (Choudhury 2009). As an innovation in police organisation and philosophy, community policing has assumed centre stage. The following puts forth the concept of community policing as an antidote: “The United Nations Conference on Human Rights in Southern Europe portrayed COP (Community Oriented Policing) as the human rights response to the treatment of Roma minorities. An otherwise highly competent report on crime and problems of policing transitional societies (International

66

CHAPTER THREE Council on Human Rights Policy, 2003) recommends New York- style COP as the solution for countries as varied as Ukraine and Argentina. The University of Ottawa Human Rights Centre promotes COP as the antidote to the appalling level of police and civilian death rates in Sao Paulo. At the Abu Dhabi Conference (19 February 2000), experts from Arab countries, Singapore, Taiwan, France, Britain, the United States and Canada recommended the implementation of COP within Sharia and local cultural values to reduce crime. Similarly, even South Africa and Brazil are amongst jurisdictions seeking Ontario Provincial Police expertise on community policing (Community Policing Department Centre, 2001). A September 1999 Seminar (Japan-Singapore Partnership Programme for the 21st century, 2001) selling Singapore-style COP was attended by police officers from South Africa, Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Island, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Across the developing nations, COP has been largely introduced as an antidote to crime problems together with a fatalistic view that history requires an inexorable path of police reform” (Choudhury 2009, 34).

Development of the Concept The “pre-history” of community policing dates back to specific communitarian practices in medieval Great Britain (Roelofse 2007; Brito 2010). Alfred the Great (857-901 AD), an Anglo-Saxon king, formulated a legal code known as the mutual pledge system which is regarded as one of the earliest forms of community policing. Under this system, the citizens were expected to police themselves through informal social controls and the State had minimal direct participation in the maintenance of order. As and when a crime was committed, the members of the community gathered in pursuit of a felon, making a loud outcry to alert others so as to give chase and apprehend the offender. Next in the history of such initiatives is the introduction of community constables by Sir Robert Peel, referred to as “bobbies”, in the newly created Metropolitan London Police District during the early 19th century. Sir Robert Peel rationalised that “the police are the public and the public are the police” (Fridell 2004, 4). Fridell believes this statement is the key principle of community policing and that “police should not be separated from, but rather joined in partnership with, the community” (Fridell 2004, 4). Sir Robert Peel, highly influenced by the works of the great thinker Patrick Colquhoun, succeeded in pushing through the Metropolitan Police Act in the Parliament in 1829 by convincing his peers that a police force should be instituted in

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

67

London under the auspices of the government. The police should be unarmed, proactive and preventive, and their efficiency would depend entirely on their ability to win public approval (Roelofse 2007; Brito 2010). Peel’s rationalisation was the foundation of the London Metropolitan Police, also known as the Scotland Yard, considered to be the first modern police force in the world. The London Metropolitan Police made two main innovations in the arena of public safety: first, by introducing preventive patrols and second, through a structured organisational hierarchy similar to the military establishment. Public safety services were provided by citizensin-uniform and these services emphasised local community contact. Thus, Peel’s principles, built into the London Metropolitan Police, emphasised not only the interdependency of the police and the public but also proved an effective tool for the prevention of crime and disorder. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, American and Canadian policing developed along lines roughly similar to those of the London police. Most major American cities had established municipal police departments before the Civil War. Like the London police force, these departments adopted a paramilitary structure - officers wore distinctive blue uniforms and walked assigned beats. However, unlike the “bobbies”, American officers carried guns and were under the supervision and direct control of politically appointed local precinct captains. Before 1850, at least three major American cities - Boston, Detroit and New York - had police forces organised along the lines of the Peelian doctrine. It could be argued that this “British Westminster tradition of public consent” is the historical inspiration for contemporary community policing (Ellison 2007, 207). Subsequently, changes towards a more “professional-bureaucratic” policing were made, leading to innovations such as the motorised patrol and the 911 emergency telephone systems. Police reform began to be systematically demanded and, eventually, the principles of the medieval mutual pledge system and the Peelian consensual system were revisited. In the U. S. A. and Canada, reform movements were informed by two main ideas - “problem-oriented policing” and the “incivilities hypothesis” - both of which are substantially derived from those initial systems. The first idea, Problem-Oriented Policing (commonly referred to as POP), was introduced by Herman Goldstein and laid the foundations of an innovative approach to dealing with public safety. This approach sought out to redefine the “professional” or “traditional”, incident-oriented, police work. The redefinition basically involved the de-construction of three traditional police myths (Brito 2010). The first myth related to the apprehension of criminals regarded as the primary aspect of police work.

68

CHAPTER THREE

Goldstein argued that law enforcement by means apprehension was not the chief function of police work and should be regarded as only one of several mechanisms to provide safety to citizens. The second myth was that punitive law enforcement was indeed the most effective way to curb crime. Goldstein asserted that prevention, as opposed to deterrence and repression, also had a significant effect on increasing public safety and maintaining order. The third myth dealt with the “means-over-ends” focus of the traditional police, an obsession with procedures and equipments that frequently had no real impact. Goldstein, in this regards, suggested that greater police efficiency could be achieved in the course of detailed analyses of discrete aspects of crime problems and the development of adequate responses, rather than, for example, merely increasing the number of police cars, or using more powerful weapons, or changing management options. The second idea that furthered police reform in the U. S. A. in the 1980s was Wilson and Kelling’s “incivilities hypothesis”, postulated in an article titled “Broken Windows”, which was first published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982. Wilson and Kelling’s “incivilities hypothesis” holds that unless firmly suppressed, a disorderly environment or antisocial behaviour in public will frighten citizens and attract predatory criminals, thus leading to more serious crime problems (Brito 2010). The innovation of this idea lies in the unprecedented relationship that it identifies between urban degradation and disorder. It also suggests the redefinition of the role of the police, and that the police should be more actively involved with the community in order to improve community environments. Kelling and Coles later elaborated on Wilson and Kelling’s hypothesis and suggested that urban degradation was related to criminality, including its more violent manifestations (Kelling and Coles 1997). In view of the same, they argued that by “fixing broken windows”, via the formation of partnerships between the community and State agencies, a substantial number of criminal and disorderly situations could be prevented. This logic calls for a higher interaction between the State and law-abiding citizens through sustainable and enduring affiliations and joint ventures so that undesirable situations, before they become criminogenic, are duly anticipated and dealt with. Goldstein’s “problem-oriented policing” and Wilson and Kelling’s “incivilities hypothesis” thus form the philosophical core of the contemporary models of community policing in the West.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

69

The United States of America Community policing evolved slowly in the USA with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which exposed the weaknesses of the traditional policing model. Though the origins of community policing could be traced to the very crisis in police-community relations, its development had been influenced by a wide range of factors over the course of the last forty years of the twentieth century. Its content and character changed each decade commencing from the 1960s in consonance with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the growth of academic interest in the 1970s and more importantly, the exalted importance of the Foot Patrol as a policing alternative, the beginnings of a Coherent Community Policing Approach of 1980s and at the end of such trajectory, Community Policing as a National Reform Movement of 1990s and beyond (see http://law.jrank.org/pages/ 1649/Police-Community-Policing-Origins-evolution-communitypolicing.html). In fact, improvements in police-community relations emerged slowly from the political and social upheavals surrounding the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Widespread riots and protests against racial injustices brought government attention to sources of racial discrimination and tension, which incidentally included the police. The police were exposed to a great deal of public criticism not only for deteriorating law and order but also for underrepresentation of minorities in police departments. Studies revealed (Walker 1977) that the police treated minorities, particularly the African American community, more harshly as compared to their white counterparts. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1967 took a critical approach to this civil unrest and recommended that the police should become more responsive to the challenges of a rapidly changing society. Team policing, attempted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, developed from this concern, and was the earliest manifestation of community policing (Rosenbaum 1982). In an attempt to facilitate a closer police-community relationship, police operations were restructured according to geographical boundaries (in accordance with community beats). In addition, line officers were granted greater decisionmaking authority to enable them to be more responsive to neighbourhood problems. Innovative as it was, staunch opposition from police managers to decentralisation severely hampered successful team implementation, and team policing had to be abandoned as it could not reach its logical end. Increased availability of government funds for police research during the 1970s spawned a great deal of academic interest on police-public

70

CHAPTER THREE

relations. Researchers began to examine the role of the police and the effectiveness of traditional police strategies much more diligently. In 1974, the Kansas City Patrol Experiment revealed that increasing routine preventive patrol and police response time had a very limited impact on reducing crime levels, allaying citizens’ fear of crime, and increasing community satisfaction with the police service. The Kansas City police department arrived at the conclusion that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere (Kelling et al. 1974). Yet another study on the criminal investigation process revealed the limitations of routine investigative actions and pointed out that the crime-solving ability of the police could be enhanced through strategic programmes of greater cooperation between the police and the community (see http://law.jrank.org). One of the reasons for this consideration appealing to police departments was the recognition that regarding the police as well as the community as co-producers of police services distributed the blame for increasing crime rates (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). An innovative project in San Diego specifically recognised this developing theme by encouraging line officers to identify and solve community problems on their beats (Boydstun and Sherry 1975). However, it was not until the late 1970s that both researchers and police practitioners began to focus more intently on the specific elements associated with community oriented policing. The major catalyst for this change was the re-implementation of foot patrol in American cities. In 1978, Flint, Michigan became the first city in a generation to create a city-wide programme that took officers out of their patrol cars and assigned them to walking beats. Meanwhile, a similar foot patrol programme was launched in Newark, New Jersey (Greene and Taylor 1988). In Flint, foot patrol was part of a much broader programme designed to involve officers in community problem-solving. In contrast, the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment, modelled on the study of preventive patrol in Kansas City, focused specifically on whether the increased visibility of officers patrolling on foot helped deter crime. Results from these innovative programs were encouraging. It appeared that the foot patrol in Flint significantly reduced citizens’ fear of crime, increased officer morale and ultimately reduced crime. In Newark, citizens were actually able to recognise whether they were receiving higher or lower levels of foot patrol in their neighbourhoods. In areas where foot patrol was increased, citizens realized that the crime problems in their area had diminished in relation to other neighbourhoods. More so positive attitudes toward the police started increasing. Similarly,

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

71

those officers in Newark who were assigned foot patrolling duties experienced a more positive relationship with community members. The finding that foot patrolling reduced the citizenry’s fear of crime demonstrated the importance of a policing tactic that fostered a closer relationship between the police and the public. As foot patrolling was capturing national attention, Herman Goldstein proposed a new approach to policing that helped synthesise some of the key elements of community policing into a broader and more innovative framework (Goldstein 1990). The foot patrol and policecommunity cooperation were integral parts of Goldstein’s approach, but what distinguished problem-oriented policing (POP) was its focus on how these factors could contribute to a police officer’s capacity to identify and solve neighbourhood problems. By delineating a clear series of steps, from identifying community problems to choosing from amongst a broad array of alternative solutions to law enforcement, Goldstein showed how increased cooperation between the police and the community could do more than merely reduce fear of crime. An intimate familiarity with local residents could also provide the police with an invaluable resource for identifying and solving the underlying causes of seemingly unrelated and intractable community problems. With its common emphasis on police-community partnerships, parts of the philosophy of problem-oriented policing were readily incorporated into conceptions of community policing. The 1982 publication of an article entitled “Broken Windows” (Wilson and Kelling 1982) in a national magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, opened a new page in the history of the development of community policing in the USA. The article received a great deal of public exposure. These marked the beginnings of a Coherent Community Policing Approach during the 1980s. Drawing upon the findings of the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment, Wilson and Kelling constructed a compelling and highly readable argument, challenging the traditional crime-fighting role of the police, and exploring the relationship between social disorder, neighbourhood decline, and crime. According to them, officers on foot patrol should focus on problems, such as aggressive panhandling or teenagers loitering on street corners, which reduce the quality of neighbourhood life. Just like a broken window, the aggressive panhandler or the unruly group of teenagers represent the initial signs of social disorder. Left unchecked, they can make citizens fearful for their personal safety and create the impression that nobody cares about the safety of the neighbourhood. Over a period of time, this untended behaviour increases the degree of fear and helplessness experienced by law abiding citizens, who subsequently begin to withdraw from neighbourhood life. As residents recoil inside their homes, or even choose to run off the area

72

CHAPTER THREE

altogether, local community controls sap their strength and boisterous elements take over the neighbourhood. Eventually, this process of neighbourhood corrosion can lead to an increase in predatory crime. Wilson and Kelling argue that by patrolling beats on foot and focusing on the initial indication of social disorder, the police can reduce the fear of crime and twig the process of neighbourhood decay. Goldstein’s work and Wilson and Kelling’s article triggered widespread concentration on problem solving, the foot patrol, and the relationship between the police and the community - all of which were becoming mostly associated with community policing. Police departments were quick to seize upon these ideas and the publicity generated by these scholars, and in the 1980s experimented with numerous problem-oriented and communityoriented policing. In 1986, problem-oriented policing programmes were implemented in Baltimore County, Maryland and Newport News, Virginia. In Baltimore County, small units consisting of fifteen police officers were detailed to specific situations and made in charge for their successful resolution (Taft 1986; Eck and Spelman 1987; Brown and Wycoff 1987). In Newport News, the police worked with the community and identified burglaries as a serious problem in the area. The solution involved the police acting as community organisers and brokering between citizens and other agencies to address the poor physical condition of the buildings. Ultimately, the buildings were demolished and the residents relocated, but more importantly, problem-oriented policing confirmed that the police were capable of adopting a new role, and it did appear to reduce crime (Pate et al. 1986). From 1988 to 1990, the National Institute of Justice sponsored the Perspectives on Policing Seminars at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Not only did this facilitate popularise these innovations in policing, but it also helped scholars and practitioners refine and synthesise the ideas and approaches to community-oriented and problem-oriented policing. One policing seminar paper by Kelling and Moore (1988), “The Evolving Stategy of Policing”, received a great deal of scholarly attention. It summarised the history of policing and identified what was distinctive about recent developments in the field. In contrasting three different policing approaches and finishing with the advent of the “community problem-solving era”, they announced the arrival of a complete paradigm shift in law enforcement. With all the aforesaid development in place, community policing had become a powerful national movement and a part of everyday policing parlance during the 1990s. Supported by the federal funds made available

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

73

through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), police departments across the country worked hard towards implementing community policing reforms. Annual conferences/seminars/colloquiums on community policing became frequent, and researchers embarked on the study community-policing programmes in cities all over America. Besides the accessibility to funds and host of research findings, the political appeal of community policing and its close affinity to long-term trends in societal organisation contributed to the widespread reception of community policing. Given the large absorption of African Americans and Hispanics, groups which have historically been engaged in a hostile relationship with the police in American cities, an approach to law enforcement that promised to improve police-community relations by working with, rather than targeting, racial and ethnic minorities held great appeal for local politicians concerned with pleasing their constituents (Skogan and Hartnett 1997). At the beginning of the twenty-first century, even though police departments may have been slow to adopt all the philosophical precepts, tactical elements and organisational changes commensurate with the entire community-policing model, its slow and steady evolution suggests that it is a permanent fixture in the landscape of American policing (Zhao and Thurman, 1995). Chriss has analysed three eras of formal policing in United States and how it has changed over time. Chriss says “The three eras of policing-political spoils, reform and early professionalization and community policing-provide us this glimpse into the structure and function of (largely) municipal policing from the 1830s to the present day” (Chriss 2013, 19).

Mohanty (2011, 25-26) in a research paper has discussed some of the salient features of community policing in the United States. i. Policing in the U. S. A. is highly decentralized with 18,000 autonomous police agencies. A majority of the police work takes place in municipal and county departments. Each agency has the autonomy to implement that model of community oriented policing which is best suited to the interest of the people it serves. ii. Community Oriented Policing (COP), Community Based Policing, Community Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving (COPPS) all refer to a model or philosophy of policing that is based on three fundamental concepts. iii. Focus on problem-solving, rather than simply handling calls. This is a very proactive approach, rather than a traditional, more reactive

74

CHAPTER THREE

approach. It has spawned many programmes to improve the ability of the police to be effective in crime prevention. iv. Decentralization of service and decision-making: Within the philosophy of COP, it is necessary to allow local commanders freedom to tailor programmes to meet local community needs. This is especially critical in large urban and metropolitan areas as there may be very diverse interests within the jurisdiction. At the local commander level, decisions must be made regarding how to employ the resources available. This also drives a need for more generalist police officers capable of performing a wide range of services and keeping specialised policing to a minimum. The higher the number of officers available to interact directly with the public in problemsolving, the better. v. The final fundamental component lies in developing partnerships with other governmental agencies, NGOs, and local groups in the community. This component recognises the inability of the police to solve social or individual criminogenic problems in isolation. Depending on the nature of an underlying, causative problem, the police may need to partner with organisations as diverse as public works, domestic violence groups and churches. vi. Much of the impetus for community policing came from the reports of the President’s Commission on Crime and Disorder in the late 1960s and the efforts of the various police agencies to forge cordial relation with ethnic minorities like African Americans and Hispanics. The article Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling is also considered seminal in this regard. vii. Since 1994, the Federal Government has been making sustained efforts to promote the culture of community policing amongst police agencies in the United States. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate paved the way for financial assistance to police agencies. The office of the Community Oriented Policing Services was created under the Department of Justice to coordinate the programmes, nationwide. viii. With the support of COPS, a number of community-oriented training programs have been introduced, chief among which are the New Perspective on Community Policing, Police Training Officers Program and the Regional Community Policing Institute (RCPIs).

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

75

ix. COPS collaborate with a number of universities and engage academics to conduct research in the field of community-oriented policing and provide rich inputs to police leaders and practitioners. x. In the years since September 11, 2001, there has been an increasing emphasis by the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies on the community oriented policing for the prevention of terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has been emphasising the significance of community policing in its larger mission of preventing the incidence of terrorist attacks. The above analysis shows that the process of institutionalisation has been strengthened and has taken its roots in the various community policing programmes in the United States over the years, thereby “informing public policy across the law enforcement community” (Chriss 2013, 89).

The United Kingdom In recent years, the police in the UK have embraced community safety and a focus on the needs of the local communities as a core policing task. The police refer to this approach as “neighbourhood policing”. Neighbourhood policing teams have been established across the country, and these teams may be referred to by other names as in the case of the Metropolitan Police, which refers to them as safer neighbourhood teams. According to the Home Office, “Neighbourhood policing is a key - and permanent - element of reforms to make the police service more citizen focused. We are building a more responsive, locally accountable and citizen-focused police service through a programme to transform policing at a local level to meet the needs of communities” (Home Office UK 2004, 4).

The UK Government set out its commitment to ensure that every area in England and Wales would benefit from neighbourhood policing in the white paper on “Building Communities, Beating Crime” published in November 2004. Neighbourhood policing is seen to be locally led. Engaging effectively with local people, and involving them in agreeing on and tackling local policing priorities are vital elements of the national neighbourhood policing programme. Led by police officers, neighbourhood policing teams include Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), often together with special constables, local authority wardens, volunteers and partners. There are now more than 13,000 police constables and sergeants dedicated to

76

CHAPTER THREE

neighbourhood policing in England and Wales. In addition, over 16,000 PCSOs have been added to the extended policing family. Funding of neighbourhood policing is increasingly becoming an important element of core policing budgets. As an indicator of the scale of funding needed to support the national roll-out, the central government’s Neighbourhood Policing Fund had a budget of GBP 324 million in 20082009. PCSOs play an important role in the delivery of neighbourhood policing services. Their primary role is to provide high-visibility reassurance policing to deal effectively with low level crime and anti-social behaviour. Their presence on the streets makes residents feel safer and they are an important part of the police team. PCSOs are best seen as a complement to, and not a replacement for, the role of sworn police officers. The government has legislated for PCSOs to have defined powers which can, at the discretion of chief police officers, be extended to other powers as provided by legislation. All powers held by PCSOs focus on raising the community’s confidence (CSinfo Online Magazine 2010, 7).

Brazil By the mid-1990s, the community-oriented policing programs being implemented in the United States and Canada and the numerous publications heralding the positive results of these programmes caught the attention of emerging democracies such as Brazil, that were interested in reforming and improving their police forces and enhancing the state of public security in their cities (Neto 1999). During this time, numerous community-oriented policing projects started to be implemented in diverse municipalities in many Brazilian states. There were documented projects in Espirito Santo, the Federal District, Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo, with names such as “community policing”, “interactive policing”, and “citizen security” being accorded to these projects. These were mostly pilot projects confined to a particular city or neighbourhood. This changed in 1996 when the Center for the Study of Violence (Núcleo de Estudos da Violência) at the University of São Paulo initiated an exchange programme between the military police of the state of São Paulo and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The purpose of the programme was to exchange experiences with regard to community-oriented policing and the participation of civil society in the formulation and implementation of policies to control violence, in general, and police violence in particular. One of the results of this

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

77

experience was the launching of a project to implement community-oriented policing across the entire state of São Paulo. It is the most ambitious community-oriented policing project to have been implemented in Brazil to date. Although São Paulo was the first and only state to adopt communityoriented policing as a state-wide policing strategy, it was certainly not the only state to implement community-oriented policing. The military police of the state of Minas Gerais have established a long-term exchange programme with the police in the American state of Texas (the Texas-Brazil Police Exchange). This programme promotes an exchange of ideas, strategies, and experiences of policing between law enforcement agencies themselves, community members, academic institutions, and government officials in both countries. This programme has four main goals. The first is to impart crime, violence and drug prevention training to the participants. Secondly, the program aims to increase citizen participation and cooperation with the police, and improve law enforcement officials’ conflict management and ethnic tolerance skills. The programme also aims to modernize the law enforcement agencies in Minas Gerais and Texas. The last aim is to implement good governance practices, transparency, and accountability within the police. The northern state of Bahia is also implementing a programme called “Community Policing - Citizen Police” (Polícia Militar da Bahia). The military police in Bahia also realised the importance of changing their way of doing things to ensure a better future for the organisation. The organisation wants to implement a modern policing model that will allow them to attend more satisfactorily to the needs of the citizens. In addition, the military police force of Bahia wishes to increase interaction and communication between the police officers and the community. As has been described above, after decades of repressive police behaviour and tense relations between the police and the community in Brazil, there was a widespread desire to bring about a change and reform the police force. Numerous states around Brazil chose to do this by implementing community-oriented policing programmes. Although these programmes differed considerably from one another, they all focused on the military police and had similar goals. The hope in many Brazilian states is that community-oriented policing techniques will not only improve policecommunity relations but will also increase safety in favelas - or urban slums - that suffer from acute crime and deep mistrust between residents and law enforcement officers (Neto and Loche 2003).

78

CHAPTER THREE

Therefore, community-oriented policing emerged in Brazil not only as a strategy to make the police more effective in terms of crime control and maintaining order but also to make it more responsive to citizens and accountable to the community (Neto and Loche 2003).

South Africa In addition to creating community-oriented policing strategies, the Government of South Africa has pursued a number of sophisticated police reforms since the transition to majority rule in the 1990s. Political leaders during the transition from apartheid realised the need to substantially restructure the police force in the country from one that focused on selective repression to one that focused on guaranteeing broader security to the population in a democratic context, while at the same time controlling political dissent (Shaw 2002). The police force was renamed the South African Police Service and sought, in its early strategic plan, to reorient policing towards community-oriented practices. In order to build up legitimacy, the government focused on developing police-community ties. The community-oriented policing meetings that it established at a number of police stations brought in local representatives to create a level of accountability and to help orient the police towards resolving problems through contacts with citizens. This particular strategy encountered substantial difficulties as a result of police resistance. South Africa also sought to improve policing by developing a stronger national investigative force (Shaw 2002). In addition to the city improvement districts programme and the participatory mapping programmes, South Africa has implemented a number of innovative police reform strategies, including the Zelethemba model, a community policing and conflict resolution project. The project, which was set up in Worcester, near Cape Town, sought to respond to democratic deficits in policing by building local governing capacities through community peace committees comprising 5 to 20 members who hold meetings to resolve conflicts (Kempa and Shearing 2002). This programme has received substantial support in South Africa and has been adopted in Argentina in efforts to boost the local democratic set-up and control conflict. Two other examples of significance are the Peace Corps projects carried out in Gauteng, near Johannesburg, and the Peace and Development project, near Cape Town, which seek to integrate residents into policing efforts and which have received substantial international support (Camaroff 2007). The

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

79

South African Police Service has also implemented a sector policing approach. In this strategy, precincts are broken down into neighbourhood sectors that have a specific commander who is responsible for crime control in the region through contact with the community and the convening of a local sector crime forum. The crime forums exist alongside community police forums in some places, and problems have arisen in terms of both sector boundaries and collaboration between sector commanders (UNDOC 2011).

Singapore Singapore has grown in many ways over the last 40 years to become a city-state that enjoys a high level of economic growth, political stability and most importantly, a sense of safety and security. It was not a smooth journey, as the country experienced its most turbulent phases in the 1950s and the 1960s, characterised by the problems of political instability, communist insurgency, secret societies, unemployment and communal riots. Amidst the rapid modernisation of society, much of the transformation from the old crime-ridden town to a safe city today can be attributed to the Singaporean government’s tough stance against criminals and criminality, manifested in the form of strict laws and heavy penalties (Singh 2004). Apart from the strict laws and rigorous enforcement, the improvement of the social and economic situation of the Singaporean citizenry helped control crime rates. Over the past 15 years, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has made two significant innovations in the area of policing in light of social and economic changes. The first of these is the introduction of a community-based policing strategy through the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) system in 1983 while the other innovation involves the shift towards community focused policing through the creation of Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) in 1997 (Singh 2004). The Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) system, adapted from the Japanese Koban system, was introduced in 1983. Eight NPPs were set up as a pilot in a constituency, with a view to assess the impact and success of the system in Singapore’s environment. The trial was a success. By 1993, the entire set of 91 NPPs was set up throughout the island. This was accompanied by falling crime rates and an increased sense of safety and security amongst the public. However, in view of rising expectations of both the public and police officers and the need to address new challenges arising from various

80

CHAPTER THREE

developments, the police have now embarked on revamping the NPP system into the NPC system (Singh 2004).

The “Koban” of Japan Japanese police activity centres on the “Koban”. This is the time tested and trusted policing method adopted by the Japanese police owing to its two major advantages. These are proximity to citizens and promptness in action. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Japan’s police force is its “Koban” system. One can identify a koban / residential police box easily by its red lamp. Each “Koban” or residential police box has its area of operation and is primarily responsible for the security of a section it covers. In Japan, every “Koban” serves an average of 8,604 people. Police boxes in urban areas serve more people than in rural areas, while the average number of police officers on duty is in the proximity of two or three. There is, in fact, a neighbourhood police station within six or seven blocks of every urban resident in Japan. Much of the credit for Japan’s low crime rate is given to the country’s vast network of community-based, crime control organisations operating everywhere from schools to prisons. Every Japanese police graduate has to serve for several years at one of these mini police stations. Japan’s approximately 15,000 “Kobans” receive about 50 per cent of the total number of public requests for assistance, and the police officers stationed at “Kobans” also make bi-annual visits to every home and business in the area. According to a UN study, there are three main reasons behind the success of the Japanese “Kobans”: i. The system is deeply rooted in historically well-organised communities. ii. The Japanese police in general are trusted by the people. iii. The comprehensive training programme Japanese policemen have to undergo is very unique in its thoroughness.

Australia The Australian Federal Police provides community policing to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and has programmes aimed at fostering good relationships between the police and the youth in the ACT. The Australian Federal Police, the principal law enforcement agency through which the Commonwealth of Australia pursues its law enforcement interests,

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

81

is unique. It has functions that relate both to community policing and investigation of offences in Australia and overseas (Kumar and Vaidyanathan 2000). “Leading the Way to a Safer Community” is the slogan of the Serious Fraud Investigation Branch of the South Australian Police. Booklets like Security and You and Safer Communities are distributed amongst the public to bring them closer to the police. Through its website on the Internet, the department assists members of the community with updated information relating to fraud matters, and business and white-collar crimes in particular. It is committed to providing the corporate community and other interest groups with information on fraud awareness and prevention strategies. Training packages are developed as part of the Community Fraud Prevention Education. The National Missing Persons Unit encourages people to not hesitate but call the police if someone goes missing. Many helpful hints are circulated among the citizens as hand-outs and posted on the internet. The Unit recognises and promises to protect the dignity, confidentiality and privacy of persons reported to be missing. The approach is worthy of emulation in India where missing persons cause great anguish and the police are alleged to be callous in their attitude. Victoria State launched Neighbourhood Watch in the early 1980s. The residents make a small contribution towards expenses and the watch groups are part of a larger citizens’ association, which supports and coordinates their work. The New South Wales (NSW) Police Service circulates crime prevention tips, home security hints and has an appealing theme called Crime Stoppers. The NSW Police Service’s Annual Report in its entirety is available online, and the report explicitly promotes transparency. The Queensland Police Service too has a Crime Stoppers programme and its vision statement specifically refers to working in partnership with the people of Queensland to enhance the safety and security of our community. In the state of Queensland, the Centre for Crime Policy and Public Safety of Griffith University’s School of Criminal Justice and Criminology introduced community conferencing for juvenile offenders in 1996. This has been hailed as a major reform of juvenile justice practices. A few of the referrals were from the police. The objective was victim-offender reparation. The police and the courts, as “primary gatekeepers” provided suitable subjects for conferencing.

82

CHAPTER THREE

The South Australia Police Bicycle Patrols are police officers on bikes, accessible to anyone in and around Adelaide. It is an excellent community policing technique, costs little, has a high profile and enables quick responses in congested traffic situations. The “Cops on Bikes” are specially trained and equipped with powerful headlights, and have a distinct uniform. They have special high quality bikes for the squads, mountain bikes for hilly and rural areas and fast bicycles for cities. They have customised and compact communication systems and illumination equipment and a distinct uniform designed for bike riding. Training is community-oriented.

Canada The London (Ontario) model has evolved along the lines worked out by the people and the police in a number of innovative community policing programmes in Canada. The key components of the initiatives are “Commitment, Cooperation and Communication”. They have a Community Oriented Response Unit dedicated to proactive community policing. The city of London (Ontario) is divided into six regions with two “Alliance Volunteers” per region acting as resource persons, and one police officer acting as a “Contact Person”. Potential situations are monitored by the Unit and misunderstandings are often defused. In the summers, the youth work with the police, the police see the community through the eyes of the youth and the youth understand the police’s problems and dilemmas. The police also encourage the youth to consider law enforcement as a worthwhile career. In British Columbia, citizens relayed to the Justice Oppal Commission in 1993 that though the public had great regard for their police, they were dissatisfied with the distance between them and the police. Justice Oppal found that the people were desirous of community policing. Justice Oppal recorded the following on community policing in Canada: “Virtually every police department in North America claims to be committed to, and involved in, community-based policing. They make the claim based on some of their programs. These include school liaison programs, victims service operations, storefront stations, community relations units, bicycle patrols and Block Watch. These programs may be important to particular communities, but their mere presence does not ensure the presence of community based policing. The programs are still managed by, and run for, the benefit of the police” (Oppal 1994, 8).

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

83

The first storefront police station operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was the Woodgrove Centre Community police station, established in 1989. It is on Vancouver Island and is staffed by volunteers who keep the station open on weekdays. It is a rallying point for the people and the police. An evaluation of the unit showed that although there was almost unqualified support for the community police station, very little personal involvement of the people in community policing initiatives was actually seen. The Edmonton Neighborhood Watch Program has certain unique features. It is a registered charitable society in Edmonton, Canada with a business office funded through grants and donations from people, community leagues and companies. It was introduced in 1975 and restructured in 1981. Over 140 communities and several neighbourhoods are involved in the programme. The avowed purpose of the programme is to reduce criminal activity through the combined efforts of volunteers, the police and other agencies. It comprises elements like residential security, operation identification, and messaging systems. The Canadian Police Information Center security clears each public participant or member. Finally, the Victoria Police launched a “We Care” campaign in the 1970s and it was so successful that South Africa borrowed it in toto.

Belgium Belgium has a three-tiered police organisation, which includes the Community Police, the Judicial Criminal Police and the Gendarmerie. The Community Police answer to the mayor, with their overall control vesting with the Minister of the Interior. Their duties are general patrolling and traffic control, with a strong emphasis on community relations. They conduct preliminary investigations into crime at early stages and hand over the cases to the Judicial Criminal Police. The separation of the investigative police from the community police in Belgium helps promote friendly ties between the police and the society.

France During the late 1970s and the early 1980s, France underwent a number of drastic social upheavals, and witnessed a significant increase in violence and property crimes, along with local, politically-inspired acts of terrorism

84

CHAPTER THREE

(Jones and Wiseman 2006). The French national government, sensing that a hard-nosed and repressive police force was making matters worse, published the Peyrefitte Report that called for a social answer to the problem of crime. As a result, the government appointed a committee to study the following factors: i. The psychological aspects of violence; ii. The effects of improved urban planning on human behaviour; iii. Linkages between economic opportunity and violence; and iv. Other social problems contributing to crime rates. The Peyrefitte Committee was somewhat similar to the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council (see Part I, Sweden). In its report, the Committee criticised the traditional structure of the French “top-down” bureaucracy, which had become secretive and unresponsive to public needs and demands. Instead, the recommendation was to share administrative power with the communities to the extent of determining their own security programmes, and involving key neighbourhood individuals and organisations in with the formulation of workable solutions. The administration, according to the Council, clearly needed to recruit local elected officials such as mayors and city councillors, school teachers and principals, social service directors, youth and sports counsellors, police officers, magistrates and members of local communities. Together, it was observed that they would devise new strategies to prevent crime on various levels. This development prompted the national police administration, in partnership with the judiciary (which also included prosecutors, investigating magistrates and parole and probation officers), to form its own council for crime prevention at the most efficient suppression level possible. Unfortunately, this held no potential for community involvement or advice, but was an exclusively “top-down” bureaucratic response to the deteriorating state of security in France. Then, in 1997, a new mechanism, the Local Security Contract (LSC), was devised to bridge the gap between municipal social prevention programmes and the top-level partnerships of police executives and civil servants in the judiciary. In this renewed attempt to come to grips with rising crime and violence, crime prevention was de-emphasized and the basic concept of security was promoted as one of the main pillars of French governance. Police prefects and prosecutors signed contracts with mayors of cities and towns. As the cities already had their community policing framework in place, the Local Security Contracts could count on joining together the two main forces that had been working separately, and often at odds with each other up until that time.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

85

Contracts became locally based. They were now administered and monitored by a new group of professional civil servants, the LSC Coordinators. In time, this cooperation was incorporated into national legislation, which specified that the mayors were to remain in charge of the new security effort. Finally, in August 2002, the French Parliament enacted the Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la sécurité intèrieure. This law created the Local Security and Crime Prevention Councils, which placed France structurally in a position similar to that of Sweden. The new act also completed the integration of social crime prevention with security (crime suppression) techniques, leaving the important decision-making powers with local communities. It should be noted that, while all those councils and partnerships were developing, France also promoted the introduction of officiers de réseau, or local beat officers, who received some special training in community policing skills. Originally started as a pilot program in a handful of northern French cities, this practice spread throughout the country, and resulted in the development of a number of innovative outreach techniques that proved effective in reducing crime while at the same time, improving the communities’ feelings of safety and participation in an interactive programme. When the law of August 2002 came into effect, the combined local neighbourhood policing concept was incorporated into the overall planning as Police de Proximité, or Community Policing. The intention behind this is to mandate police cooperation with local municipalities, and to make the police accountable to the public for its actions. Second, it mobilises local residents to participate in ensuring their own security by using inter-agency outreach teams, problem-solving, counselling, and neighbourhood volunteer work amongst other community policing approaches. To summarise, French community policing is still evolving. It features many social crime prevention innovations, and has turned the community’s efforts into a permanent fixture. On the downside, the French police have dragged their feet over the course of the entire process. Historically, they have considered themselves as an elite paramilitary corps of specialised professionals. Ordinary citizens are, in their view, not qualified to “tell them what to do.” Organising a community and galvanising it into anti-crime action is simply not seen by the police as a part of their brief. “Getting local residents to participate is not something we’re good at” is an oft-heard refrain amongst police officers. As a result, public meetings are seldom publicised and are

86

CHAPTER THREE

not well attended by residents. For those who do attend, they are treated to another institutional presentation, replete with some rehashed statistics and recitations of new administrative regulations in fluent bureaucratese. The public is then asked to inform on their neighbours, is given a list of their rights and responsibilities, and the meeting is adjourned. There is certainly a parochial element in the French approach, in which local residents are treated, not as the owners of their neighbourhoods with the cooperative power to boost crime prevention up by an effective level of force multipliers, but rather as helpless and abandoned invalids, who need the police to act as guardians and tutors. There is no method in place to make the police solicit the advice and guidance of the community. There is no mechanism to question the manner in which the police/justice delivery system works or to make them accountable for mistakes or abuse of power. There is no catalyst for change within the closed ranks of the police. A consequence of this missing element of community participation is that, over time, the social dimension loses its substance and its contents. Instead, the police and civil service administrators tend to impose increasingly repressive policies “from the top down”. Thus, the exclusion and frustration of the Muslim youth, among other ethnic groups, escalates.

Germany Community Policing in Germany developed over several decades, and is largely an extension of a community concept of crime prevention. During the 1980s, German crime rates rose rapidly. The governmental response to this challenge was to create a crime prevention philosophy that would serve as a stable, permanent basis for the development of new techniques and applications by the police at the local level. In turn, German concepts of community policing emerged from: i. the new crime prevention philosophy, both social and situational; and ii. a detailed study of successful programs in other countries, including the United States. It must be noted at the outset that Germany is federalised - read decentralised - and far less subject to direct national rule than Sweden or France. Germany consists of sixteen separate Länder, or States, each of which has its own legislature and empowered state Governor. Much of the work associated with crime prevention occurs at the state level. In the early 1990s, a number of German states formed their own Crime Prevention

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

87

Councils. By 2002, nearly all the rest of the states had adopted a similar approach, and had enacted model projects on local crime prevention techniques. Between 1992 and 2002, crime rates throughout Germany dropped considerably, a real accomplishment considering the challenging integration of the five new eastern states, formerly under communist, Sovietaffiliated government. By 2004, Germany counted about 820 homicides in a population of over 82 million residents, or a ratio of 1 homicide for every 100,000 population. Germans credit their unique state and local policing approach for the low rate of violent crime. In addition, German states have tried out various policing theories or working philosophies over the past two decades, including an early form of community policing resembling the American model, first attempted in the late 1980s, called “citizen-friendly policing”, which slowly evolved into today’s “Community Crime Prevention”, or Komunale Kriminalprävention. Germany rejects the notion of “zero tolerance” or “broken window” policing philosophies, as do nearly all the member states of the European Union. They believe that those and similar short-term suppression techniques may raise arrest rates temporarily, but cannot be permitted to masquerade as true community policing, which brings together all the valuable local organisations and authorities in a broad, sustainable effort to improve the quality of life for all residents and, in the process, rescue young people and the disadvantaged from a life of crime and violence. Thus, community policing in Germany is not a single organisational feature of the German police forces, but is rather an applied philosophy that can be used in specific neighbourhoods, in specific instances and for achieving clearly defined results. The structure is determined by each state separately. In some Länder, it is formulated by the state government. In others, it is delegated to the towns and cities, and a decision is taken at the local level. In most states, the police either take the initiative in organising community policing boards or councils in their towns or cities, or cooperate with the mayor or city council by participating on a local Crime Prevention Council. An important body, founded in 2001, is the German Crime Prevention Forum (http://www.kriminalpraevention.de). This is a joint venture between the Federal Government and the 16 States. The Forum is located in Bonn, the former West German capital, and works to extend the concept of crime prevention by accounting for the broader social aspects of the task, along with using the local ownership of interagency resources in new and innovative ways.

88

CHAPTER THREE

The laudable philosophy of the Crime Prevention Forum is that crime prevention is the duty of the society as a whole. It therefore brings together all the competent government ministries and departments, along with relevant social resources such as schools, churches, trade unions, business managers, youth counsellors, health care providers and social and housing services. In addition, the federal-level “Commission on Police-Based Crime Prevention” acts as a research and development bureau for specific areas of work. It disseminates its studies and “how to” manuals to the various states and local police departments to help them start similar programs at grass roots level. These include the prevention of narcotics sales and abuse, robbery and blackmail, personal violence, youth crime and domestic violence, as well as the amelioration of vulnerable youth. The Commission also develops new techniques for improving police-citizen relations.

Neighbourhood Watch Many German states have neighbourhood watch programmes, but they do solely exist in a few States: Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse and Saxony. Most members are armed with pepper spray. Their main duty is crime prevention by: i. conducting walking patrols to deter street crime, ii. patrolling near schools and kindergartens, and iii. maintaining contact with potential victims of crime and juvenile delinquents. Bavaria has instituted a system of citizen patrols (Sicherheitswacht) in which unarmed teams of two volunteers patrol assigned areas to improve subjective security. These teams carry a radio to call for help, if necessary and pepper spray for protection. A white armband with black letters identifies each of them as a member of the neighbourhood watch patrol. Citizens in Baden-Württemberg can participate in the Volunteer Police programme, where roughly 1,200 citizens voluntarily assist their local police across 20 towns. These volunteers are specially trained, wear uniforms and are equipped with normal police gear. However, the government sought the abolition of the auxiliary police, following which financial support as well as the induction of new auxiliary officers was immediately stopped. Citizens in Hesse and Saxony can also participate in a Volunteer Police programme, where some citizens voluntarily assist their local police. The volunteers are trained for 50 hours (in the case of Saxony, 60) and receive uniforms, pepper spray and a mobile phone (in the case of Saxony, they

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

89

receive a radio). People can also join the Wachpolizei which has lesser authority (and lower pay) than the regular police to perform basic police tasks such as traffic or guard duties.

Sweden Sweden is a relatively homogeneous country, although immigrant groups now make up more than 10% of the population. These groups are mostly from North Africa and the Middle East. Further, Sweden has had many years of useful experience with a long-term commitment to furthering an open, compassionate and supportive society. The country’s perspective on community policing helps form its policies on police structure and administration. In addition, Swedish experience and legislation had a heavy influence on the 2001 European Union legislation on crime prevention and communities. Sweden began its ground breaking work in 1972 with the establishment of a national centre for research, development and coordination of policing with the aim of reducing crime at its social and communitarian roots. It formed the National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande Rådet) to pave a two-way street of involvement with cities and towns. The Council takes the experiences and problems of communities and evaluates these against its vast databank of crime prevention techniques. These are tried and tested methods from Sweden and other European countries. The Council then distributes the “best and brightest” ideas and programmes amongst local police departments nationwide. It also supplies politicians, decision-makers, the media and the general public with information and data on crime prevention locally. In 1992, the National Council for Crime Prevention began forming local committees under the same name (Brottsförebyggande Råd, or BRÅ). Over the years, local crime prevention councils were set up in 232 of the country’s towns and cities. The Councils act in a cooperative capacity and work closely with the local police, as well as with social services, youth and family services and schools. They sponsor programmes that are geared to local conditions, both socially and economically. Police representatives sit as voting members on the councils, which gives the police the opportunity to engage in an expanded form of community policing, while acting as advisors and consultants to the various social crime prevention projects. Thus, in Sweden, crime prevention arrived first as a theory and only then as a practical administrative structure. It facilitated the introduction of

90

CHAPTER THREE

community policing and provided a forum for the community as well as for the police. This had the effect of ensuring that the local police departments would become less aloof and secretive, more user-friendly, and more directly accountable for their actions. It also has made the police much more effective, successful and respected by their constituents. Ms. Ann Näfver, who is the Coordinator of Sweden’s 232 local Crime Prevention Councils, suggests that in forming a local council, the following persons and bodies should ideally be represented, i.e., invited to join from the very outset: i. City or town council members and other politicians; ii. Local police chiefs; iii. Churches, mosques, synagogues, other religious institutions; iv. Medical services; v. Social service administrators; vi. Prosecutors, Juvenile court judges; vii. Drug and Alcohol rehab facilities and counselors; viii. School administrators and teachers; ix. Chambers of Commerce, business and tourism representatives; and x. Any other community members willing to contribute their time and efforts. Outreach seems to be the “mantra” of Swedish councils. They have scored great successes in crime prevention and reduction through the use of interagency outreach teams that visit specific neighbourhoods two or more times a month. They can consist of, for example, one police officer with some background training in social services, one paramedic or nurse and one “Big Brother” social counsellor or drug/alcohol rehab specialist. It should be noted that other countries, including Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France and Denmark, have also discovered that these interagency outreach teams constitute one of the most effective forms of community policing. For their part, the Swedish police have found that these frequent, brief visits are far more effective than quarterly or semi-annual community meetings. One reason is that the weekly appearance of “old friends” in the interagency teams make the police welcome in even the most excluded of neighbourhoods. Sweden distinguishes between two interlocking types of crime prevention: Situational prevention: This is mainly a police matter, aimed at reducing actual crime rates in each neighbourhood by removing persons and opportunities from the area. It combines traditional policing with newer,

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

91

integrated methods. The police have the responsibility for planning and executing situational prevention programmes. They have four stages: i. Mapping of crime and existing crime prevention activities and resources; ii. The planning of separate initiatives on a multi-agency basis using the mapping results; iii. Implementation; iv. Evaluation based on having clear, well set-out goals that are measurable. Examples would include reduction of crimes in a specified grid or area in which the programme is being carried out, or specific types of crime such as mugging, auto theft, home robberies, drunken disorderly offenses or narcotics sales; Social Prevention: This is a crime prevention council general plan for eliminating the root causes of chronic crimes, and involves not only the police, but also city planning, education, economic disparities, minority and immigrant communities and their special needs, and other developmental measures. Police inputs are, of course, extremely valuable and indispensable. In the end, however, Sweden recognises that the communities and the government as a whole, and not just the police, are responsible for the social prevention of crimes. In Sweden, as in many other European countries, experience has taught police forces that one-half of the crimes are committed by just five per cent of the perpetrators (hardcore criminals and repeat offenders), and the remaining one-half of the crimes are committed by the residual 95 per cent of offenders (casual or opportunity offenders). Most rehabilitation programmes are thus aimed at the latter 95 per cent, most of whom are potentially good citizens.

India The police, as an organised institution in this country, came into being with the Police Act of 1861. This was a statute created by the British in the immediate aftermath of the uprising of 1857. The Police Act of 1861 was conceived at a time when the colonial rulers perceived a threat from its subjects and, therefore, provisions of the Act were carefully drafted to make it an effective instrument to curb the voices of protest against the oppressive rule. As the Indian independence struggled to gather momentum, crushing the incipient freedom movement became the main objective of the British

92

CHAPTER THREE

rulers, for which they came to rely on the strength of the police force. In the process, law and order functions came to occupy centre stage among police duties, at the cost of the prevention and detection of crime (PIB Press Release on Home Minister’s Address, 1 September 2005). At the time of independence in 1947, no restructuring or reorganisation of the department could be effected, although it offered a historic opportunity to do so. Large scale violence broke out, the moderation of which became the priority, leaving little time and imagination for reform. Under the scheme of the Government of India Act of 1935, the Indian leadership had a fair experience of working with and leading this policing system; they continued with the same arrangement for a free nation. The only sign of change was at the top, with the replacement of British officers with Indian officers. The officers leading the force were drawn from the army and the force followed a similar regimentation. The changes that should have come with independence quite simply did not happen (Choudhury 2009). The imprints of the past remain firmly etched not only on the body of the organisation but also on its soul, which constitutes the culture and ethos of the organisation. Many of the problems of the present-day Indian Police, such as poor relations with the public and an indifference to their interests, along with an unquestioning loyalty to the ruling establishment have their roots in the organisation’s colonial past (Dhillon 1998). India is a union of 28 states and 7 union territories. The Police figures in the State List (Entry 2) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Police Forces are governed by rules and regulations framed by the State Governments, although the Union Government does have the prerogative to deploy armed forces or any other force subject to the control the Union in any State in need of civil aid (Entry 2-A of the Union List of the Constitution of India). The State Governments depend on the Union for handling major disasters, anti-terrorist and anti-insurgency operations. The criminal justice system is uniform throughout the States and Union Territories. The total police strength of the State and Union Territory Police Forces in 2011 in the country was 16,60,953. The number of police forces per one lakh (one hundred thousand) of the population stands at 137, one of the lowest ratios in the world. Many of the state police forces are being governed by the Police Act of 1861 drafted by the colonial rulers, a central legislation, though the Constitution of India mandates that the administration of police forces should be a state subject. The provisions of the old Police Act are redundant and archaic in a constitutional democracy, where the authority of the police should not be supreme.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

93

The image of the police in today’s society has taken such a beating that it is regarded as the most corrupt, unsavoury and discourteous outfit of the government. The passage of time has not improved the situation at all. With the constitutional guarantee of the fundamental rights of citizens, the excesses committed by the police are viewed as a breach of the contract of trust between the people and the government. The behaviour of policemen has also started affecting the sense of dignity of the citizens (Jha 2004). All this led to the need for an intense introspection and a paradigm shift in policing – a need which has culminated in the adoption of the community policing concept. It came about as a refreshing breakaway from the faceless policeman approach to the good old friendly neighbourhood security-service provider. Community policing is based on the democratic principle that “anyone who exercises authority on behalf of the community (like the police) is accountable to the community for the exercise of that authority”. Its main objective is that the police should once again work with the community to identify local problems and issues, and resolve them, thereby controlling crime, maintaining order and providing security. (Jha 2004) However, despite the absence of any provision for community policing in the Act, many States and, in many instances, individual police leaders have embarked upon pro-active community oriented policing initiatives, making the police forces sensitive to the needs of the community. Unfortunately, these laudable individual initiatives, as is evident in several instances, suffer from the successor-predecessor syndrome. There has been a lack of uniformity in the application of the initiatives. In the absence of an institutional and legal framework, many brilliant initiatives have failed to stand the test of time. In the following paragraphs, some of these good practices and initiatives by Indian states have been dealt with: i. “The Friends of Police” (FOP) of Tamil Nadu: ‘The Friends of Police’ (FOP) of Tamil Nadu is a holistic and pro-active concept that lends a psychological approach to policing. It is a true example of police-public partnership where citizens have been empowered with the help of the police. The concept was first introduced by Mr Prateep Philip, the former Superintendent of Police, Ramnad District of Tamilnadu. State level resource centres, centralised training and government funding are some of the institutional arrangements attributed to the survival of the scheme. ii. Trichy Community Policing: The Trichy Community Policing scheme centred on the Beat Officers’ System. Introduced by the erstwhile Commissioner of Police, Mr Jalad Kumar Tripathy, in the aftermath of serious communal riots, the initiative was

94

CHAPTER THREE

recognised by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Washington and conferred the International Community Policing Awards at Toronto in 2001. It was also selected for the International Innovations Awards Program of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) during a conference at Glasgow, Scotland in September 2002. iii. “Nabadisha” of Kolkata Police: Kolkata Police started an innovative programme called Nabadisha (New Direction) way back in 1999 with a view to reduce juvenile delinquency in the long run. The programme targets underprivileged children in the age group 3-15 from streets and slums and conducts informal classes and periodic health check-ups for them. The purpose of Nabadisha is to improve the children’s physical and mental qualify of life and instil positive values in them, so that their chances of straying into the world of crime are reduced. Several NGOs participate in this programme under a formal resource sharing agreement with the Kolkata police (Basu 2005). iv. “Prahari” of Assam: A neighbourhood watch scheme, Prahari, was introduced by the Assam Police to tackle social problems and to bring the police and the community closer to each other. v. Residents Welfare Associations and the Market Associations of Delhi Police: The Delhi Police has taken various steps, from time to time, to involve the community in policing, address causative problems and build goodwill. One of the earliest initiatives taken by the Delhi Police was to have regular interaction and dialogue with the Residents Welfare Associations and the Market Associations. Efforts were made to encourage public cooperation in basic policing measures such as patrolling and area security. This, subsequently, led to a major initiative in the 1980s, with the establishment of the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. This scheme involves individual colonies of pockets, with the resident associations functioning in tandem with the police and seizing the initiative to ensure their own security, including access control with the help of chowkidars (security guards) and installation of gates, patrolling, verification of servants and tenants and above all, staying vigilant so as to spot anything out of the ordinary in the community. This Neighbourhood Watch Scheme was very successful and led to a reduction of crime in almost every area in which it was introduced (Dadwal 2005).

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

95

vi. Community Policing Resource Centres (CPRCs) in Punjab: Community Policing Resource Centres (CPRCs) have been set up in Punjab. These are autonomous registered societies jointly managed by the representatives of the community and police officials. The CPRCs are designed to make the law enforcement agencies more friendly and accessible to ordinary citizens and more responsive to their needs and in the process, build public confidence in the police. These units include one for victims of crime, one for non-resident Indians, and a unit set up specifically to serve women. As a result of this experiment, the reporting of incidents of domestic violence has tripled. vii. “Maithri” of Andhra Pradesh: Maithri, a community policing initiative was launched in the year 2000, by the Andhra Pradesh Police across the state of Andhra Pradesh. The mission of Maithri was to render courteous, compassionate and caring responsive police personnel and increase public confidence in police with respect to maintenance of peace and order and a feeling of safety from crime. viii. “Police Mee Kosam” (Police for You) of Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh: The Police Mee Kosam (Police for You) experiment was primarily undertaken to curb the left wing extremism of the CPI (Maoist) group under the leadership of the then Superintendent of Police of Adilabad, Mr. Mahesh M. Bhagwat. This experiment is the recipient of the 2004 Community Policing finalist award conferred by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), USA. ix. “Mohalla Committee Movement Trust” of Mumbai: The Mohalla Committee Movement Trust, a community policing initiative of the Mumbai police in the aftermath of the 1992 communal riots, involves citizens in maintain communal amity and has been a bedrock of pro-active policing initiatives. x. “Mahila & Sishu Desk” and “Ama Police” of the Odisha Police: The Odisha Police embarked upon a scheme, called the “Mahila & Sishu Desk”, in the year 2005 as one of the community policing initiatives to address the grievances of female victims of crime and juveniles in conflict with the law. According to the guidelines, every Police Station will have a woman and child help desk to look into the grievances and to deal with these target groups. Recently, in 2013, the State government introduced “Ama Police” (literally meaning Our Police), an overarching community policing

96

CHAPTER THREE

scheme scheduled to cover every police station in Odisha in a phased manner. The mainstay of the scheme is the concept of “house visits” by the beat officers to familiarise themselves with the residents of the community. xi. “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” of Kerala Police: The “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” has been launched by the Kerala Police as its flagship community policing scheme. The institutionalisation of the scheme by a governmental order, political consensus, budgetary provision, training and selection of beat police officers and the appointment of state level Nodal Officers are some of the key features of the scheme. Our field study is based on this project and its key findings have been dealt in Chapter Four. The community policing initiatives by most of the governments of the States and Union Territories in India were “informal policy processes” that should have ideally been backed by “due process” policy. The community policing practices should have been part of the police mission statement duly recognised in the Act and laws governing the police organisations. However, the reform measures aimed at making the police more serviceoriented, facilitating the transition from a reactive to a more proactive organisation which is sensitive to the needs of the community, have not been entirely encouraging due to half-hearted political will and a dearth of institutional support. This is why it is suggested that the police leadership should don the garb of “policy entrepreneurs” in this complex policy making process, instead of seeking political consensus in vain.

National Police Commission and Police Reforms Some of the important measures to reform the police in the postindependence era are outlined here to appreciate the policy environment that influences and shapes the functioning of the police in India. The Government of India appointed the National Police Commission (NPC) on November 15, 1977. The Commission was asked to conduct a comprehensive review at the national level of the police system, in the context of the far-reaching changes that had occurred in the country after the enactment of the Indian Police Act 1861, the report of the last Police Commission of 1902, and in particular those changes which had come to the fore since independence. The NPC had fairly wide and comprehensive terms of reference, involving a fresh examination of the role and performance of the police, both as a law enforcement agency and as an institution to

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

97

protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution. One of its most important terms of reference required it to recommend measures and institutional arrangements to “prevent misuse of powers by the police” and “misuse of police by administrative or executive instructions, political or other pressure, or oral orders of any type, which are contrary to law” (CHRI website). During the period between 1979 and 1981, the NPC published eight reports. Some major recommendations focusing on the problem of insulating the police from illegitimate political and bureaucratic interference included: (i) the setting up of a Security Commission in each state to see that the government exercises its superintendence over the police in a transparent manner within the framework of law; (ii) prescribing a selection procedure that would ensure the appointment of the best officers to head the state police force; (iii) giving these officers a fixed minimum tenure so as to reduce their vulnerability; (iv) amending rules so that arbitrary transfers of police officers done without the requisite authority would be regarded as null and void; (v) replacing the Police Act of 1861 with a new Police Act (Joshi 2005); (vi) giving the subordinate police officers a fixed tenure of two years in each posting; and (vii) separation of the investigation wing from the law and order wing at the police station level to provide quality time to investigation of heinous offences. There are some of the most important recommendations made by the NPC.

Directives of the Supreme Court of India The reports of the NPC gathered dust until two former Director Generals of Police moved the Supreme Court of India in the year 1996 in a public interest litigation (PIL) to direct the union and state governments to implement these core recommendations and make the police organisation more efficient, professionally competent, functionally independent and accountable to the rule of law and to the people. The Supreme Court, in an interim yet historic order, in the year 2006 directed the union and state governments to implement the core recommendations and has been subsequently monitoring the progress of the implementation (Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 310 of 1996, dated 22.09.2006). The seven directives in a nutshell are placed in Box : 3.1.

98

CHAPTER THREE

Directive One: Constitute the State Security Commission to: i. Ensure that the State government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; ii. Lay down broad policy guidelines; and iii. Evaluate the performance of the State police. Directive Two: Ensure that the DGP is appointed on merit, through a transparent process and secures a minimum tenure of two years. Directive Three: Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including the Superintendent of Police of a District and Station House Officers) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years. Directive Four: Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. Directive Five: Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. Directive Six: Set up a Police Complaint Authority (PCA) at the state level to enquire into public complaints made against police officers of and above the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody, and at the district levels to enquire into public complaints against police personnel below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct. Directive Seven: Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for the selection and placement of Chiefs of Central Police Organisation (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years. Box 3.1 : The Seven Directives in a Nutshell Towards a New Police Act The National Police Commission in its 8th and final report of 1981, submitted a new Police Bill for India. Thereafter, in 2005, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) to draft a Model Police Bill for India, chaired by the eminent jurist Mr. Soli Sorabjee. The Committee submitted a Model Police Act to the Union government in October 2006.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

99

The Committee’s terms of reference were to draft a new Police Act in light of the changing role and responsibilities of the police, as well as the challenges presented by the increase in insurgency, militancy and Naxalism in India. The terms of reference required the new Act to include measures to change the police’s attitude (including a working methodology to involve the community in policing) and reflect the community’s expectations of a modern police service. The preamble to the Model Police Act 2006 that was produced by the Committee sets out its vision of policing as follows: “WHEREAS respect for and promotion of the human rights of the people, and protection of their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, is the primary concern of the Rule of Law; AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide impartial and efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests of vulnerable sections of society including the minorities, and responding to the democratic aspirations of citizens; AND WHEREAS such functioning of the police personnel needs to be professionally organised, service oriented, free from extraneous influences and accountable to law; AND WHEREAS it is expedient to redefine the role of the police, its duties and responsibilities, by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of State, the imperatives of good governance, and respect for human rights; AND WHEREAS it is essential to appropriately empower the police to enable it to function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency; NOW, THEREFORE, since it is necessary for this purpose to enact a new law relating to the establishment and management of the Police Service, it is hereby enacted as follows:...” (Preamble to the Draft Model Police Act, 2006).

The core philosophies of community policing have been incorporated into the mission statement of the proposed Police Act: from being an enforcing authority to a service-oriented, people friendly and responsive approach, with an ingrained respect for human rights. The legislation of the new police Act, however, remains the prerogative of the states in the federal structure of the Constitution of India. Many state Governments remain opposed to implementing the reform measures ordered by the Court’s directions as they see it as curtailing their powers to control the police (Mohanty and Mohanty 2010).

100

CHAPTER THREE

National Police Mission Another significant development in the year 2006 showed signs of promise for creating a new vision statement for the police. The Prime Minister of India announced the intent of the Government to set up a Police Mission in his address to the DGsP/IGsP Conference on October 6, 2006. “The Mission seeks to transform the Police forces in the country into effective instruments for maintenance of internal security and facing the challenges of the current century, by equipping them with the necessary material, intellectual and organizational resources.”

The Mission is charged with the responsibility of creating a new vision for the police. The Mission is required to pay special attention to empowering the police forces at all levels, to appropriating the decentralisation and delegation of powers, to enhancing the skills and competency levels at the grassroots, to enhance accountability to the people, and to meeting new challenges such as asymmetric warfare, new trends in urban unrest and disorder, and new forms of social unrest. It has been clearly outlined that the National Police Mission shall not be a substitute for the various Committees/Commissions set up on the subject of police reforms, but rather equip the police to think actively and enable it to transform itself from a reactive to a proactive organisation. The first meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Police Mission, held under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Minister in September 2008, established a number of Micro Missions (MMs) in order to achieve the objectives of the National Police Mission. Accordingly, it has since been decided that the following six Micro Missions shall be instituted, each concerning a specific area, so that all of them put together shall encompass, as far as possible, the entire canvas of policing: i. MM-01: Human Resource Development; ii. MM-02: Community Policing; iii. MM-03: Communication and Technology; iv. MM-04: Infrastructure; v. MM-05: New Processes (Process Engineering); and vi. MM-06: Proactive Policing and visualizing the future challenges. The members of different Micro-Missions have submitted several reports after elaborate research, out of which seven projects have been approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India. Three out of these seven approved projects relate to community policing, and these

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

101

include Police Community Partnership, Community Counselling Centre, and Soft Skills for Police Personnel. The Police Community Partnership is the national overarching model for community policing. It is based on a 3-tier structure, starting with the Beat at the lowest level and ending with the Community Liaison Group at the top. The middle rung is known as the “Police Mitra”, friends of the police. Beat Policing is the time tested traditional proactive policing that has been prevalent in many parts of the country. A police officer remains in charge of an area, called a Beat and acquaints himself with the local population. In each beat, 10-15 “police mitras” from among the local population are to be selected on the basis of their willingness. Each “police mitra” should be a public spirited person with an attitude of serving the community at the time of his/her leisure. Under each police station, there are several contiguous beats. The number of “police mitras” under each police station may be limited to 150-200. Every police station will have a Community Liaison Group consisting of “police mitras” as well as several co-opted members. The Community Counselling Centres will be set up in all the police stations with a view to addressing the problems faced by victims of crime against women and the juveniles in conflict with the law. In addition to trained police officers, professional counsellors will be engaged by the government to man these centres. The project reports are likely to be circulated among the states for implementation. However, as law and order is a state subject in India, State Governments are not under any obligation to adopt the projects and may exercise their discretion in their implementation. Kerala is one of the Indian states which has launched its community policing scheme, “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, with the requisite legal and institutional framework as a public policy. The flagship community policing scheme was conceptualised in the year 2005, when the UDF (United Democratic Front) government was in power, launched in the year 2008 by the arch-rival LDF (Left Democratic Front) government and has now been consolidated under the patronage of the UDF government again. We studied the Kerala community policing scheme with a view to examine how the scheme has weathered the different “political streams”, survived the “successor-predecessor syndrome” and the impact it has had. This study further examines the benefits accrued to the police organisation, to the community and the “shared benefits” to both as well as the policy processes it encountered during the pre-implementation, implementation and

102

CHAPTER THREE

consolidation phases. After having analysed the macro impact of this micro study from the context, processes and outcome perspective, we have tried to formulate a set of recommendations to serve as guidelines both for policy makers and practitioners while introducing community policing as a public policy.

Lessons for India from the US Experience Mohanty (2011) has highlighted the points of convergence and divergence in community policing practices of USA and India in an attempt to suggest the lessons India can learn from the community policing practices of the US. Although policing in both countries vastly differ functionally, the common denominator arises from both nations being constitutional republics with the rule of law as the guiding principle for governance. Before highlighting the lessons to be learned by India, it may be relevant to briefly discuss how India has fared in the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) sponsored community police awards. These awards are presented to police organisations internationally for the advancement of community policing. Apart from the United States, other countries that have been recognised by the IACP are the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Northern Ireland, and Bahamas. The Trichy Police Commissionerate (Tamilnadu, India) bagged the award in the large city category (population > 250,000) in the year 2001. The district of Adilabad (Andhra Pradesh, India) was nominated as the award finalist for the community policing initiatives in the extremist infested areas of the district, known as “Police Me Kosam” (literally translating to Police for You) in 2004. In the year 2009 the IACP recognised Kochi City Police, Kerala, India, for its extensive efforts in working with its community to identify suspicious activity and prevent terrorism. This shows that the some of the community policing practices in India have been recognised internationally alongside their US and Canadian counterparts. All these award winning practices are, however, individual driven initiatives with the risk of being put to disuse after the incumbent is moved on. Lessons that can be learnt from the US community policing are therefore not the strategies per se but the overarching federal system that supports and sponsors a number of schemes for the police agencies across the nation. Some of the salient features of the community policing schemes in the United States have been highlighted in the preceding section. The ones that are critical for India are as follows (Mohanty 2011, 30-32):

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMMUNITY POLICING

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

103

Like the office of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) under the Department of Justice, US Government, the Micro Mission-02 (Community Policing) of the National Police Mission, the Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of the Government of India may act as the Nodal Agency for the country. Like the Department of Justice of the US government, the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India may make provisions in the annual budget for the sponsoring and funding of community policing schemes of the State/Union Territory police forces. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India may issue advisories to the State/Union Territory governments for the implementation of the national overarching model on community policing submitted by the Micro Mission-02 of the National Police Mission. Though it may not have the statutory strength of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 or the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, such an advisory can serve as a guideline to the State/Union Territory police departments. The new Draft Police Bill, which has enabling provisions on community policing, may be legislated by the State governments to provide the states with statutory powers for introducing various schemes of community policing akin to those in the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994. The mission statement of the Indian police should be redefined with an added emphasis on community policing as is the case with the majority of the police agencies in the United States. It should amend its reporting and evaluation procedures to align itself with the activities undertaken under the aegis of community policing. The US department-wide adoption of community policing is evidenced by the integration of the philosophy into mission statements, policies and procedures, performance evaluations, hiring and promotional practices, training programmes and other systems and activities that define organisational culture and functions. India has been the victim of terrorist attacks for the last two decades. Like the US Department of Homeland Security underscoring the need of community policing in the prevention and response to terrorism, the National Security Council of India could play a critical role in promoting community policing for national security

104

CHAPTER THREE

and may advise the State and Union Territory governments to implement various community policing initiatives. vii. As is the case with the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) within the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the USA, the Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of the Government of India should collaborate with academics and universities to encourage research in the field of community policing. viii. The BPR&D may identify State Police Academies as state level community policing training centres for the training of police personnel and civilians (like the Police Training Officer programme of the COPS, DoJ, USA).

CHAPTER FOUR COMMUNITY POLICING INITIATIVE: “JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

Looking back at all that has been said, community policing, as an alternative policing strategy adopted worldwide, advocates the forging of problem solving partnerships between the police and the public. Community policing revolves around the principle of pro-active policing through peoplefriendly policing practices, community participation and problem solving, culminating in crime prevention and maintenance of order. Community policing allows the law enforcement agency to get back to the principles upon which it was founded, to integrate itself into the fabric of the community so that the people and the police collaborate even before a serious problem arises. Here, the police acts as a catalyst in the social engineering experiment. To put it succinctly, community policing is a useful, holistic and proactive concept and a tool to transform the police’s image, strengthen the force and create attitudinal changes both within the force and amongst the public. In its strategic dimension, it contributes to individual, state and national security. Organising the diverse views on community policing into a coherent whole is a daunting and possibly dangerous task. So much has been said by so many police officials, policy analysts, researchers and theoreticians that one sometimes wonders if they are talking about the same thing. So many claims have been made about community policing - with and without evidence that one wonders if it is possible for community policing to deliver on all or even most of them. The wounds caused by questionable police involvement in government suppression of the citizens of former nondemocratic societies would be healed the fastest if community policing becomes a reality based on trust and cooperation. Only then will the police be able to truly serve and protect those model citizens who strive to obey the laws their own democracy creates. Researchers found that some of the community policing projects and programmes were not full-scale and comprehensive projects and some of

106

CHAPTER FOUR

them had had little or no effect. However, research designs that failed to test the resulting effectiveness have been blamed in those cases. Some studies also found some shortcomings in the implementation, the community’s involvement and command support. Academic literature embraced an advocacy of COP in the name of reform, prevention, and democratisation. Consequently, while criticisms and reservations are to be found, the literature is replete with uncritical exhortations, general conceptual outlines and scant evaluation (Brogden and Nijhar 2005). Against the above backdrop, thus, are set the rationale and the need for the present study. A view of the varieties of theories available on the subject reveals that there is no single theory that can explain the diversity and complexity of emergence, strategy, implementation and impact of community policing in a domestic context. There is a need for an integrated approach to contextualise theories and praxis in India and to have a national overarching model for policy implementation. Community policing experiences in India have not been very uniform. There has been a lack of uniformity in application of the initiatives. States in India like Kerala and Tamil Nadu with the new Police Act have made exemplary progress, while the implementation of community policing in some other states is rife with difficulties. A lot many states are yet to escape the stranglehold of the 1861 Police Act. There has been a lack of institutional support and legal framework to sustain, nurture and carry forward the efforts. There is a need to study and share the Kerala experience for actionable policy recommendations.

Research Gap and Rationale for the Present Study Several studies have concluded hasty evaluations of the impact of CP practices without any detailed examination of the dynamics of their emergence, the initial challenges faced and the strategic issues encouraged at each stage of its accomplishment. Initiatives of police executives are seen, in several instances, to suffer from the twin problems of a lack of political will and the successor-predecessor syndrome. A need is felt to go into the details of such dynamics from the pre-implementation to the impact phase via its very implementation. These studies are either mostly of a descriptive nature or consist of evaluation exercises which have relied on official statistics or case studies of success stories. Qualitative research employing focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, observation, case study and triangulation methodology

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

107

(cross examination of theory with praxis) is required to be employed in the present study with a view to understand behaviour, beliefs, opinions and emotions from the perspective of the study’s participants and understand the relevant processes, such as how policy makers make decisions or negotiate the obstacles. The ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Project’, the flagship community policing scheme of the Kerala Police, was conceptualised in the year 2005 and has weathered various “political streams”, survived the “successor-predecessor syndrome” and has gained public acceptance. The study intends to explore such dynamics, and emerge with a context-process-outcome framework for the guidance of policy makers and implementers. Finally, this study is intended to work out the macro policy dynamics by approaching the issue through a micro study, keeping the uncritical import of western models in view. To conclude, the identification of the research gap and the rationale for the present study has set the stage by providing the type of methodology adopted for the research. The specific objectives of the present study are decided on the basis of the research gap found in the available literature with a well triangulated preliminary field visit.

Objectives of the Study The present study sets off with the following objectives: i.

To delve deep into legal and institutional frameworks necessary to support and sustain the community policing strategies/initiatives;

ii. To study the nature of the pre-conditions/prerequisites to the implementation of the community policing strategies in a geographical unit like a district; iii. To examine the various phases of development of practices of community policing in the state of Kerala, the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, and implications thereof as benefits to the police organisation and to the community; and iv. To analyse the macro impact of this micro study from the policy and praxis perspective and to come out with a set of recommendations to serve as guidelines for policy entrepreneurs.

108

CHAPTER FOUR

Research Design A decision regarding what, where, when, how much and by what means concerning an inquiry of a research study constitutes a research design. In brief, research design must at least contain: i) a clear statement of the research problem; ii) procedures and techniques to be used for gathering information; iii) the population to be studied; and iv) methods to be used in processing and analysing data. The present study has an exploratory-cum-descriptive research design using qualitative methodology on the basis of HutterHennink qualitative research cycle (See Box 4.1). In this study, the purpose has been to formulate the problem for more precise and structured investigation. Moreover, this type of study increases the investigator’s familiarity with the phenomena that he/she wishes to study in a subsequent, more structured investigation or with the setting in which he/she plans to carry out such an investigation. This study intends to establish a basis for clarifying concepts, establishing priorities for further research and gathering information about practical possibilities for carrying out research in specific real life scenarios.



Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle(2011)

Figure 4.1 : Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

109

Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle: (Hutter et al. 2011, 4) The Design Cycle: The design cycle is the first component of the overall qualitative research cycle. It consists of four interlinked tasks: the formulation of a research question; reviewing research literature, and incorporating theory; developing a conceptual framework for the study; and selecting an appropriate fieldwork approach. These four tasks form the conceptual framework phase of a research project. The Ethnographic Cycle: The ethnographic cycle is the second component of the overall qualitative research cycle. It describes the core task in qualitative data collection, including: designing the research instrument, recruiting participants, collecting data and making inductive inferences. The Analytical Cycle: The analytical cycle is the third component of the overall qualitative research cycle. It comprises the core tasks of qualitative data analysis, including: developing codes, description and comparison, categorising and conceptualising data and theory development. The analytical tasks are closely interlinked: linking back to the original design cycle, as theory development is informed by concepts and scientific theory from the design cycle. Box 4.1 : Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Cycle

Universe or Population Universe or population includes all the individuals, belonging to a designated category, characterising specific attributes which a particular study should principally cover. The findings from the sample are applied to the population. The population of this study includes all the stakeholders of the community policing scheme, “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, in the state of Kerala.

Kerala State Located on the south-west of the Malabar Coast, Kerala is one of Southern India’s most popular states, known for its scenic beauty, producing some of the finest spices in India and being a strong tourist magnet. Bordered by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and the Laccadive Sea, Kerala had been ruled by many powerful dynasties like the Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas. Kerala is known to be the state with the highest literacy rate (93.91%) and the highest sex ratio (1084) in the country. A survey by Transparency International in

110

CHAPTER FOUR

2005, declared Kerala as the least corrupt state in India. A lot of people from Kerala immigrate to the Persian Gulf countries and the state benefits greatly from remittances received by Malayali expatriates abroad. Kerala has a population of 33,387,677 (2011 census) which includes 16,021,290 males and 17,366,387 females, spread over an area of 38,863 square kilometres. The Decadal Growth of Population as of 2011 was 4.8, the lowest in the country.

Figure 4-2: District Map of Kerala

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

111

Although Kerala accounts for only 1 per cent of the total area of India, it accommodates about 3 per cent of the country’s population. The population density of the state is about 859 people per square kilometre, three times the national average. Kerala is one of the most densely populated states in the country. Kerala has 14 districts, 21 revenue divisions, 14 district panchayats, 63 taluks, 152 Block panchayats, 1466 revenue villages, 999 gram panchayats, 5 corporations and 60 municipalities (Official website of the Kerala Government). District Thiruvananthapuram Kollam Alappuzha Pathanamthitta Kottayam Idukki Ernakulam Thrissur Palakkad Kozhikode Wayanad Malappuram Kannur Kasargod Total

Population 3307284 2629703 2121943 119553 1979384 1107453 3279860 3110327 2810892 3089543 816558 4110956 2525637 1302600 33387677

Males 1584200 1244815 1010252 7561620 970140 551944 1617602 1474665 1360067 1473028 401314 1961014 1184012 626617 16021290

Females 1723084 1384888 1111691 633917 1009244 555509 1662258 1635662 1450825 1616515 415244 2124942 1341625 675983 17366387

Table 4.1 : District-wise Population in Kerala (Census of India 2011) Kerala’s economy is predominantly agrarian in nature. In terms of per capita income and production, Kerala may lag behind many Indian states, but in terms of the Human Development Index and living standards of its residents, it is far ahead of most Indian states, and in fact, as per certain developmental indices, it is at par with some of the developed countries. This peculiar paradox, often termed as the “Kerala phenomenon” or the Kerala model of development by experts, is mainly due to the performance of the state in the services sector. Some of the Human Development Indices of the state vis-a-vis other major states of the country are given in the Table 4.2.

112

CHAPTER FOUR

State

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Punjab Odisha West Bengal Tamilnadu Kerala All India

Sex Ratio Literacy Rate Life Expectancy at Birth (20022011 2011 06)

Population 2011 (in thousand)

992

67.66

65.5

84,666

918 877 968 893 978 947 995 1084 940

79.31 76.64 75.60 76.68 73.45 77.08 80.33 93.91 74.04

65.2 66.3 67.1 70.4 59.6 65.8 67.4 76.3 64.2

60,384 25,353 61,131 27,704 41,947 91,348 72,139 33,388 1,210,193

Table 4.2 : Human Development Indices of Kerala vis-a-vis other Major States in India (Planning Commission of India 2012)

Kerala State Police The strength of the Kerala police is approximately 42,149 with 449 Police Stations. It serves a population of over 33.38 million residing in five cities, 53 municipal towns, and 1452 villages spread over an area of 38,863 square kilometres, with an average population density of 819 per square km. Of this, about 8.2 million people live in urban areas and 23.6 million live in rural areas. The state police investigated about 246,633 cases in the year 2011. Kerala has three Commissionerates, located at Kozhikode city, Ernakulam city and Trivandrum city. The Superintendents of Police are headquartered at Trivandrum Rural, Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Ernakulam Rural, Idukki, Kottayam, Alappuzha, Malappuram, Palakkad, Thrissur, Kozhikode (Rural), Wayanad, Kannur and Kasaragod. The organogram is shown in Figure 4.3.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

113

Director General of Police

ADGP South Zone

ADGP North Zone

IG Thrissur

IG Kannur

IG Ernakulam

IG Trivandrum

CP Kozhikode (City)

SP Majappuram

CP Ernakulam City

CP Trivandrum City

SP Kozhikode (Rural)

SP Palakkad

SP Ernakulam Rural

SP Trivandrum Rural

SP Wayanad

SP Thissur

SP Idukki

SP Kollam

SP Kannur

SP Kottayam

SP Pathanamthitta

SP Kasaragod

SP Alappuzha

Figure 4.3: Organizational Hierarchy of Police Executives in Kerala The civil police per 100,000 people, an index considered to be critical for the provision of basic police services to the citizens, and the police force per 100 square kilometres of area, another crucial index to gauge the horizontal spread of police personnel are reflected in Table 4.3. Sl. No.

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10

State

Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Punjab Odisha West Bengal Tamilnadu Kerala All India

Civil Police / 100,000 of Population

Civil Police / 100 Sq. Km. of Area

131.34

39.87

108.61 232.66 156.38 193.06 81.35 58.02 154.45 114.29 139

31.93 22.43 47.58 103.71 21.18 58.48 79.84 102.16 51.73

Table 4.3 : Civil police per lakh of population and per 100 sq. km of area (BPR&D, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2010)

114

CHAPTER FOUR

Community Policing Initiatives in Kerala Prior to the introduction of the overarching community policing programme, Janamaithri Surakhya Project (JSP), several police chiefs of the Police Commissionerates and Districts experimented with community oriented policing initiatives in their respective jurisdictions. The initiatives, however, could not survive the incumbent police chief as they were informal measures without any institutional or legal support. Some of the initiatives are however worth mentioning here from an academic point of view. i.

CATCH (Combined Action against Thieves, Cheats and Hooligans) was introduced in the capital city of Thiruvananthapuram in 2000. The modus operandi of CATCH involves regular meetings between police officials and representatives of the Residents’ Association in the city apart from being in touch with citizens and their complaints online through the highly interactive portal www.tvmcitypolice.org. The CATCH 2000 Community Policing initiative aimed at crime prevention. This was to be achieved by controlling and preventing antisocial activities such as theft, cheating and hooliganism/rowdy behaviour in and around the residential colonies of the city. The motto of the program is safe neighbourhoods. The main thrust is community participation in preventing the above activities. The community should feel responsible for crime control and help the police make the society safe. This extensive interaction between the public and the police has resulted in the reduction of crime. Co-operation of the public is inevitable in crime prevention, intelligence gathering, disorder management and resolving local issues and CATCH has been instrumental in ensuring all of these. Some of the specific areas of activities include Senior Citizens’ Security, Ambulance Service, Action against vagabonds, character and antecedent verification of domestic helps, and citizen-police patrolling. ii. Thrissur ‘Police of the people, for the people’: The aim of the project is to encourage interaction between the public and the police with a view to develop and implement strategies for crime prevention and maintenance of law and order. The project was being implemented at the block level in which various schemes have been formulated and implemented for crime control and prevention. Under this programme, a series of interactive sessions with the students were undertaken. It represented a significant watershed for participative policing.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

115

iii. “Maithri” of Kannur District: A new community policing project named “Maithri” was introduced by the Kannur Police with the objective of improving police-public interaction and thereby bringing down the crime rate, besides also promoting traffic awareness. Petition “Adalats” were organised in various places of the district in which senior officers of the department participated. Under this programme, family counselling centres functioned with the help of professional counsellors. All of these initiatives were incumbent driven, top-down directives in a hierarchical organisation like the police, and at most, a public relation exercise, thereby diametrically opposite to the philosophy of community policing. It is not surprising, therefore, that the initiatives were given premature obituaries by the successors of the instituting incumbents. It will be interesting to trace out the long preparatory journey of “Janamithri Surashka Project” (JSP) before it was approved as a major policy.

Features of Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP) The detailed guidelines for the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP) are well articulated in the Police Circular Orders 34 and 35 of the Kerala Police, subsequently reiterated in the form of a Government Order to give it more legitimacy. (See Appendix-A) The JSP is a three-tier structure with the Beat/Community Police Officer at the bottom, Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi (JSS) in the middle and District Advisory Samithi at the top. (See Fig 4-4) The objectives of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP) include the prevention of crimes, furthering co-operation between the police and the community and security-related mutual co-operation amongst the citizenry. T-3: DISTRICT ADVOSORY SAMITHI

JSS: Janamaithri Surashka Samithi, PS: Police Station, T: Tier 1, 2, 3 T-2: JSS

P

T-1: BEAT OFFICER

S

T-2: JSS

P

T-1: BEAT OFFICER S

T-2: JSS

P

T-1: BEAT OFFICER S

Figure 4.4 : Structure of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project

116

CHAPTER FOUR

Janamaithri Beat Each Police Station has been divided into several contiguous beats basing on the population, homogeneity or other common characteristics of the populace. Each “Janamaithri Beat” is to be spearheaded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector or a Head Constable / Constable. The standard operating procedures for the Beat Officer or the Community Police Officer have been defined as follows in the Police Circular Order 35 of 2008 of the Kerala Police: “Within three months of taking charge, every Beat Officer should personally know at least one member of every household in his beat. Every road, lane and by-lane in the beat should be well known to the Beat Officer. The Beat Officer should know not only the houses but also all other establishments in the beat area. The Beat Officer should also keep a rough map marking the major junctions, buildings etc. of the area. He should also keep a diary containing the phone numbers and address of all important establishments and persons. A copy of the map and the diary should be kept in the Police Station. The name and identity of the Beat Officer may be exhibited at important places in the Beat area. This will help the public to know their Beat Officer. At least thrice a week the Beat Officer should reach a pre-announced place at pre-announced time so as to contact the public as well as to receive complaints from them. The details of such public contact received etc. may be entered in the beat dairy by the beat officer, who may get it countersigned by the Station House Officer. This register, containing the details of daily matters, petitioners etc., should be countersigned daily by the Station House Officer. The beat register should be kept in the Police Station. For at least 20 hours a week, the Beat Officer should go around the beat area on foot and do his work by contacting the public. The Beat Officer should gain the confidence of the public in his area in such a manner that every common citizen should feel free to approach him and talk to him without any fear and with confidence in a comfortable manner. The Beat Officer should be a role model to any one as far as his manners, etiquettes and characters are concerned.”

House visits by the Beat Officer in the model of the “Koban” of Japan constitute the mainstay of the scheme. The beat officer gets himself acquainted with the local residents by the mandated “house visit”. He acts as the link between the Police Station and the community, facilitating the access of police related services to the public.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

117

Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi (JSP) Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi, a council of local representatives, constitutes the middle tier of the JSP. According to Police Circular 34: “In every Police Station where the Janamaithri Suraksha Project is being implemented a ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi’ should be formed. The Samithi should endeavour to undertake implementation of ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Project’ within the limit of the respective Home Station. With the help of the Station House Officer, the Circle Inspector suggests the names of members to be included in the Samithi. The Sub Divisional Police Officer may examine such names and submit such list of names to the District Police Superintendent and the District Police Superintendent will constitute the Samithi. The Samithi should have proportionate representation from among women and the Schedules Castes and Tribes. Respectable citizens from locality who are active in the educational and cultural field should be included in the committee. High School/ College Headmaster/ Principals, Teachers, Retired Officers, Ex-servicemen, Corporation/ Ward councillor, Merchants, NGOs, Workers’ representatives, Residents’ Association representatives, Postmen, Kudumbasree office bearers etc. may be included in the Committee. Preference may be given to include office bearers of Residential Associations. Those who are involved in any criminal case should not be included in the Committee. Office bearers of any Political party need not be included in the Committee in that capacity. However, if they fulfil other conditions they need not be excluded just because one is a political party member. Care should be taken to pre-empt allegations that any communal or political organisation is treated with any special advantage. The structure of the Samithi should be in such a way that, ordinary citizens with civic sense and sense of social responsibility get an opportunity to utilize their talents for the greater safety of society at the local level. The process of constitution of the Samithi should be above board, and the members should be persons who command the respect of the community. The Samithi should have at least ten members, and preferably need not exceed 25. From amongst the Samithi members, the District Superintendent of Police may nominate one member as the Convener. The meetings of the Samithi will be chaired by a person about whom a consensus is reached. This can be decided by Samithi members in each meeting. The Circle Inspector of Police and the Station House Officer will officiate as Convener and Secretary respectively. An Additional Sub Inspector or an Assistant Sub Inspector from the Police Station may be designated as the Community

118

CHAPTER FOUR

Relations Officer by the Station House Officer. The Community Relations Officer should dedicate himself to the cause of implementation of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project and should render all help to the Station House Officer for the success of the programme. The Samithi may be reconstituted every two years. The District Superintendent of Police may remove any member, who involves himself in any crime case or acts involving moral turpitude.”

With regard to the meetings of the Samithi, Police Circular 34 said: “The Samithi should meet at least once a month, at a pre-announced date and place. The public residing in the Beat of that area can attend and give their suggestions. The participation of maximum number of people from the local Beat may be ensured. In case the participation of the public is very meagre, the Samithi may examine the reason for the same and give necessary advice to the Beat Officer. The minutes of such meetings should be prepared by the Station House Officer (Secretary) and a copy of the minutes should be sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police. Supervisory Officers should examine the minutes, assess the quality of meeting, and in case it is felt necessary provide advice to the Station House Officer. The Sub-Divisional Police Officers may attend such meetings once in three months, and the Superintendents of Police may attend such meetings; The Samithi may hold such other meetings as and when need arises.”

Thus, the members of the JSP, who broadly represent the population under the jurisdiction of the police station, are selected so as to represent the different cross-sections of the socio-economic-gender constituents within its geographical limits. Their regular and periodic engagement with the staff of the police station is intended to customise the police services in accordance with the needs and requirements of the community. Secondly, the feedback and opinion of the members of the JSP are considered critical for the effective functioning of the beat system.

District Advisory Samithi At the top of the structure lies the District Advisory Samithi to oversee, monitor and review the JSP. The Advisory Committee is headed by the District Superintendent of Police. The objective is to ensure proper supervision regarding the functioning of the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

119

Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Municipal Chairmen / Mayors as well as other important personalities nominated by the Superintendent of Police are included in the Committee. The committee may consist of 10 to 20 members. This committee may convene a meeting once in three months, review the working of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithis of the concerned district and give necessary suggestions and instructions for the improvement of their performance.

Janamaithri Suraksha Project: Pilot to State-wide Implementation Starting with pilot projects in 20 police stations, the JSP has been introduced in 248 police stations at present in four phases. The First Phase of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project was implemented in 20 Police Stations vide Kerala Government Order (Rt) No. 3161/2007/Home, dated 23.11.2007. The Second Phase of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project was extended in 21 Police Stations vide Kerala Government Order (Rt) NO. 1452/2009/Home, dated 22.05.2009. The sample has been drawn from these two phases of implementation in order to study the impact of the scheme. The complete picture of the pilot project can be seen in the table below. DISTRICTS ThiruvananthapuramCity Kollam Pathanamthitta Alappuzha Kottayam Idukki Ernakulam (Kochi City)

I PHASE Pettah, Fort, Contonment Paravur Adoor Cherthala Vaikom Thodupuzha Fort kochi, Kadavanthra, Palarivattom

Palakkad Thrissur

Ottappalam Irinjalakkuda

Kozhikode City

Kasaba, Panniyankara, hemmangad Perinthalmanna Payyannur Kasargod Kalpetta -

Malappuram Kannur Kasargod Wayanad Thiruvananthapuram Rural Ernakulam Rural Kozhikode Rural

-

II PHASE Medical College Town East Thiruvalla Town North Town East, Pala Kattappana Thrippunithara Hill Palace Thoppumpady Town South Town East, Town West Marad, Nadakkavu Vatakara Tirur Tellicherry Kanhangad Kazhakuttam, Attingal Aluva Vatakara

Table 4.4 : Janamaithri Suraksha Project - Implementation

120

CHAPTER FOUR

Justification of Sample The Sample is a portion of the population actually selected for the study. Sample is taken when the population is large and scattered and as a result its complete coverage is not practicable. Sampling brings a high degree of accuracy and economy in time and money and other resources. This study has used multi-stage purposive sampling. The idea was to capture as many respondents for Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and/or In-depth Interview (IDI) covering varieties of the stake holders. The stakeholders included the senior police officers (SO), uniformed Community Police Officers (CPO: men and women), and members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP-men and women)/Vanita Jagaran Samiti (VJS-women), an all women self-help group. In the first stage, three out of 14 districts consisting of Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Thrissur districts, were selected for the study where pilot projects sold well. In the second stage, seven police stations areas comprising Cantonment & Fort PS of Thiruvananthpuram City, Kadavanthra and Fort PS of Kochi City, Thrissur Town East & West PSs, Irinjalakuda PS of Thrissur Rural (An ISO 9001 PS) were chosen for FGD. In the third phase of sampling the respondents were chosen keeping gender representation and the interest to share the experience in view. In the process, the total respondents came to 119 out of which 42 were female and 77 were male of different ages and ranks. Senior officers from the Indian Police Service for the in-depth interview were six in number with one female officer who happened to be the Inspector General of Police and State-level Nodal Officer of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP). It was taken into consideration that the respondents should be selected from all cross sections. Other considerations that were kept in mind while selecting the respondents were age, gender and level of skill, so that a distributed meaningful sample was obtained.

Sources of Data Data are all the relevant materials, past and present, serving as “the living stuff” for study and analysis. They are of two types: Primary and Secondary. The data relating to the research problem collected directly from the respondents using the tools and techniques of data collection are regarded as primary data and those collected from available literature such as books,

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

121

journals, magazines, research reports and government records are secondary. The researcher has collected both the Primary and Secondary data for giving justice to this piece of research. Here the primary data has been used to bring objectivity to the study and the secondary data has been used to triangulate theory/policy with fact/praxis as well as to draw inferences. The model data collection technique in line with Hutter-Hennink’s Qualitative Research Cycle (2011) was followed.

Collection of Primary Data This study has used all qualitative techniques for the purpose of collection of primary data. The techniques included Field ethnography, In-depth Interviews, Focus Group Discussion, Observation and Case Study. The researcher used his knowledge and wisdom to collect the data himself in an unassisted manner. i.

Field Ethnography is reflexive, which makes a substantial contribution toward the understanding of the scenario, and expresses a credible reality. It observes the world (the study) from the point of view of the subject (not the participant ethnographer) and records all observed behaviour and describes all symbolmeaning relations using concepts that avoid casual explanations. Preliminary field visit was made in December 2011 for nearly a week. Detailed ethnography dates back to March-April 2012.

ii. In-depth Interviews (IDI) document precise and specific answers and compile exhaustive and varied knowledge about individual determined experiences, opinions and motives, which the group interview and the quantitative methods may not encompass. Interview guide was prepared for facilitation of the in-depth interview duly validated by the interviewees. Prior appointment was taken to confirm convenience as senior officers were busy in official works. Details of time taken for in-depth interview, items thereto and the characteristics of interviewees are appended in the analysis table next chapter. Note taking and digital voice recording were used to capture the minutes. Transcripts were prepared, edited and sent to the respondents for validation and confirmation if they were correctly recorded.

122

CHAPTER FOUR

iii. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) produces data and insights raising unexpected issues for exploration that would be less accessible without interaction found in a group setting - listening to others’ verbalised experiences stimulates memories, ideas, and experiences in participants. This is also known as the group effect where group members engage in a kind of “chaining” or “cascading” effect; talk links to, or tumbles out of, the topics and expressions preceding it. Discussions were conducted in a friendly, informal setting by the researcher himself to draw out the candid views of the stakeholders and intervene only when refocusing was necessary. Using the Critical Incident Technique, the members of the Focus Groups were asked to recall their experiences that are both positive and negative in nature. Using this mental frame, the members were encouraged to participate in the discussion. The focused group summary tables in next chapter best depict the methodology adopted and outcome thereof. Note taking and digital voice recording were used to capture the discussion from which transcripts were prepared. iv. Observation is a technique of data collection in which the situation of interest is watched and the relevant facts, actions and behaviours are recorded. Observation was used to see the implementation of CP initiatives through the researchers’ own eyes and to triangulate the impression gained from FGD and IDI. Interaction of senior citizens coupled with community police officers yielded better results. v.

“Case Studies are analyses of persons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods. The case that is the subject of the inquiry will be an instance of a class of phenomena that provides an analytical frame - an object - within which the study is conducted and which the case illuminates and explicates” (Thomas 2011). Findings of some case studies have been given in the form of Boxes in the body analysis of the next chapter.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

123

Collection of Secondary Data The author collected secondary data from IIM Bangalore Library, BPR&D Library, New Delhi, Kerala State Police Head Quarters Library, Thriruvananthapuram, Kerala State Police Academy Library, Thriruvananthapuram and Odisha State Police Head Quarters, Cuttack. The secondary data has also been collected from some other sources like The Indian Police Journals published by BPR&D; Indian Journal of Criminology and Forensic Science; White Papers and Report of Commissions of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; Government Orders and Mission Statements of Community Policing of Kerala Government, Report of KT Thomas Commission, Kerala and 11 Study Reports on the influence of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project on Communities prepared by the Research Institute of Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kochi on behalf of the Government of Kerala in 2010-11. Google searches and Wikipedia resources have been used to locate and use literature available on the internet. Due care has been taken to update the review of literature with recent published works.

Data Analysis and Interpretation After the collection of data, the author undertook the task of analysing them. At this stage, the raw data was condensed into the manageable groups by coding them to necessary categories. The qualitative data analysis aimed at developing a theory or model by developing and linking categories, otherwise known as conceptualisation, is the outcome of the research. The model approach for qualitative data analysis was adopted following HutterHennink’s Qualitative Research Pyramid (2011). (See Figure 4.5)

Develop Theory Link Categories (Conceptualization) Develop Categories (Categorization) Identify Codes Textual Data Research Methodology: Hutter-Hennink Qualitative Research Pyramid (2011)

Figure 4.5 : Hutter-Hennink’s Qualitative Research Pyramid

124

CHAPTER FOUR

Operationalisation of Concepts Operationalisation of concepts as a methodological procedure in qualitative research is not free from danger and is rather risky. But operationalisation for the purpose of the present document means the broader sense/meaning/definition in which the parameters have been categorised. These are the concepts which the researcher defines and has duly validated through prior survey of literature and subsequent to ethnography in the relevant field. The concepts are the building blocks of the theory and the variables are the core elements of the empirical analysis. Each of the parameters is defined below. i.

Political Will: Political will is the exercise of an abstract feature of political authority (ruling or opposition) to enforce certain acts for the benefit of its intention, usually for the public welfare. ii. Misconceptions in Public Mind: Misconceptions in Public mind means the lenses through which the general populace over-read or under-read the police’s attitude and activities from the point of view of their interests. The more the misconceptions in the public mind about the police, the more the gap between the police and the public. iii. Predecessor-successor Syndrome: The Predecessor/Successor Syndrome means the attitude of the successor incumbents who exhibit a general tendency not to follow the legacy left by the predecessor in the system and to do something new. This was a major obstacle at the level of some police executives in Kerala at the pre-take off stage of the CP Initiatives. iv. Developing Trust-Community Empowerment: Building and maintaining community trust is a part of ethical law enforcement which is the manifestation of public approval of police existence, actions, behaviour, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect. The less the gap in police public relationships, the higher the chances of success of these CP initiatives. Community policing empowers and encourages the citizens to resolve the neighbourhood problems with their own initiatives. v. Engaging Stake Holders: Engaging stake holders is an invitation to the people to contribute to day-to-day policing in partnership with police. This is a process of restructuring of policing priorities with due consultation, coordination and cooperation with the community at large in consonance with public expectations.

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

125

vi. Capacity Building and Training Needs: Capacity building is the development of skills, knowledge and the ability of duty bearers to engage with others in attaining organizational objectives. Training needs are understood in line with current national and local strategies, policies and targets. vii. Publicity and Propaganda: Publicity and propaganda are deliberate and guided campaign to induce masses for the acceptance of and enforcement of a given idea. The success attained by CP initiatives as recorded in the present research, is mainly due to adequate publicity and due propaganda. viii. Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures: Police Orders and Government Orders: Standard Operating Procedures are the institutionalised implementable sets of policy guidelines published in the form of Police Orders issued by the DGP of the State or by the Administrative Department of the Government, e.g., the Home Department in this case with its avowed objectives for uniform application by political executives, bureaucracy and other stakeholders irrespective of the incumbent in position to implement. ix. From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation: “Piloting” of a CP project is defined as an activity planned as a test or trial for the implementation of the concept and its actionable dimensions on a small controlled scale to allow for its full impact, benefits and weaknesses to be evaluated before implementation on a larger scale. Pilot Project is a dynamic collection of professionals who co-create inventive, tangible, fully functional and sustainable solutions to compound problems. x. Hand-holding: Hand holding means the process of providing someone with guidance, assistance, encouragement or aid and support to lessen the anxiety of duty bearers. The police leadership is expected to constantly guide, aid, support and patronise the scheme in the initial phases of implementation to overcome teething problems and make way for wider acceptance by the public. xi. Standardisation of Service Delivery Strategies: Standardisation of the service delivery involves developing a prototype model that fits into all areas after addressing the concerns of all stakeholders and making sure that they reach those people and places they are intended to. Strategy is all about integrating organisational activities and utilising and allocating the scarce resources within the organisational environment so as to meet the present objectives. .

126

CHAPTER FOUR

xii. Resource Augmentation: Working towards making adequate budgetary provision, generating additional sources of income and creating extra manpower, skill and technology for each unit of the scheme under force is known as resource augmentation. xiii. Monitoring, Control and Feedback: Monitoring and controlling consists of those processes performed to observe project execution so that potential problems can be identified in a timely manner and corrective action can be taken, when necessary, to ensure the smooth execution of the project. Feedback denotes a self-reinforcing (positive) and/or a self-correcting (negative) organisational process serving as a motivation for many people in the work place. xiv. Political Acceptance: Political acceptance relates to the process of reaching a general agreement among core political actors and obtaining both the government’s and the opposition’s dispensations to engage and work for a need-based public policy consistent with good practices and social utilities. xv. Decentralisation-partnership: Decentralisation is the process of dispersing decision-making governance closer to the people and/ or citizens. The more decentralised a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships between two players of roughly equal power, and the less it can rely on command or force. Community policing as a philosophy advocates forging of problem-solving partnerships between the police and the public. xvi. Overall Heightened Sense of Security: Sense of security means a general conscious awareness of protection and safety. Community Policing is expected to increase the sense of security of the common citizen by making the police more accessible, pro-active, visible and by removing the veil of anonymity from the face of the police. People need to perceive that crime has gone down, streets have become safer and anti-social elements are scared of the police. xvii. Security for the Vulnerable Sections: Vulnerable people are those exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally, like senior citizens without family support, women, children and the destitute who are soft targets. The state is duty bound to take care of and protect those who are vulnerable. xviii. Police Mediation in Availing Basic Services: Mediation refers to the process by which a beat police officer acts as a go-between as the visible representative of the state in addition to the common adage of being the strong arm in the provision of non-police related

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

127

services to the local residents like civic amenities, street lights in the locality, supply of drinking water, solid waste management and the like. The Beat officers intervene in such instances as they believe that lack of basic civic amenities and dumping of waste in a locality has the potential to lead to a law and order situation. Mediation by the police serves as a source of goodwill and trust from the residents they serve, thereby developing a symbiotic relationship with the residents. xix. Empowerment of the Constabulary: Empowerment is a management practice of sharing information, rewards, and power with employees so that they can take initiative and make decisions to solve problems and improve service and performance. Empowerment is based on the idea that giving employees skills, resources, authority, opportunity, motivation as well as holding them responsible and accountable for the outcomes of their actions will contribute to their competence and satisfaction. xx. Institutionalisation: Institutionalisation is a process which translates an organisation’s mission, policies, vision and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its officers and employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the organisation’s culture and structure.

Categorisation of Data & Conceptualisation The journey of JSP as a policy process has been divided into three stages and accordingly the categories or the parameters were consolidated under three major heads: pre-implementation dynamics, implementation phase and the impact phase. The policy parameters or categories under the different phases of community policing intervention, after the deductive and inductive elements of analysis, have been conceptualised. Pre-implementation Dynamics and Implementation Phase have seven parameters each and the Impact Phase consists of six parameters. i. Pre-implementation Dynamics a) Political will b) Misconceptions in Public mind c) Predecessor-successor syndrome d) Developing Trust-Community empowerment e) Engaging stake holders

128

CHAPTER FOUR

f) Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Needs g) Publicity and propaganda ii. Implementation Phase a) Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures-POs and GOs b) From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation c) Hand-holding d) Standardisation of Service Delivery Strategy e) Resource Augmentation f) Monitoring, Control and Feedback g) Political Acceptance iii. Impact Phase a) Decentralisation-partnership b) Overall Heightened Sense of Security c) Security for the vulnerable sections d) Police mediation in availing basic services e) Empowerment of constabulary f) Institutionalisation A consolidated Focus Group Discussion (FGD)/ In-depth Interview (IDI) table has been devoted to each phase of analysis with its corresponding parameters. In-depth interviews taken from six senior police officers have been carefully arranged as part of the focus group for the convenience of data analysis. Each FGD table has been analysed in three rows. R1: Focus Group Discussions (FGD)/ In-depth Interviews (IDI): Summary Information Sheet: R2 comprised four components. i. Community and Participants Information: Community name/ location, Community selection criteria, Community selection category and Number of participants; ii. Focus Group Facilitation Information: Date of focus group, Gender of facilitator and Recording method (note taking and/or tape recording); iii. Focus Group Analysis Preparatory and Reporting Information: Date Sheet of Review of Literature, Transcript preparation, Inductive Matching and Number of quotes in summary report; and iv. Explanatory comments on the process involved: Community selection, Participant selection, FG facilitation and recording. Analysis, scoring, and reporting from FGs. R2: Focus Group Summary Score Sheet: Scores were assigned to each FG arranged horizontally and on each parameter arranged vertically. Scores were assigned on the basis of the veracity of points made, number of

“JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT” OF AN INDIAN STATE

129

examples and quotable quotes captured from the transcript of recorded statements, the intensity of participation and degree of knowledge on the issue. Very high participation was given three, high as two, average as one and poor participation was awarded zero. For example, a Senior Police officer involved in the policy making spoke with a certain amount of authority on the Government Orders enlisting the standard operating procedures for Janamaithri while a member of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi benefiting from the scheme gave a passing remark about the regularity and periodicity of the meetings with local police station officers after introduction of the JSS. Both groups here have thrown light on the operating procedures. But, the Senior Officer would score very high for his quotes while the same for the member of the JSS would be average. Here, the degree of knowledge about the process made the all the difference in the scoring. R3: Focus Group Narrative Report: This row is critical for assigning scores to each Focus Group. Key Points under each category have been culled from the operationalisation of the concepts as well as interpretation of the transcripts. Thereafter, the transcripts of the respondents under different groups like Senior Police Officers (SO), Community Police Officers (CPO, both men & women), members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samiti (JSS, both men & women), members of the Vanitha Jagaran Samiti (VJS) were examined and those quotes were captured which contained the key points. For the sake of the comparison and assignment of scores, the key points under each category (Parameter) and those captured in the transcripts have been italicised. Scores were assigned on the basis of premises mentioned in previous paragraph. The FGD/IDI Table are placed as Appendices B, C and D respectively.

Limitations of the Study Prior to moving on to the next chapter for the analysis and presentation of field data, it is worth keeping on record the limitations of this study. Although a full scale study of the community policing in other states of the country is long overdue, it has not been possible to do so due to the paucity of time and resources. The sample of this study has been limited for the purpose of qualitative analysis. No quantitative analysis or statistical measurement has been done which require a large scale sample. The scope of this study did not permit this.

130

CHAPTER FOUR

A comparative framework has been adopted against national and international best practices well within limits and limitations. Theories of public policy in general and those of community policing have been used in the present research to prepare an integrated overarching policy matrix and experts are entitled to special comments. All possible care has been taken to give this present work its desired shape with the hope that this exercise, within its limits and limitations, may enable the researchers and other scholars to make further extensive and intensive studies on this segment of time-suited modern policing.

CHAPTER FIVE CRITICAL STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE In this chapter, we have shown how far the codes from the qualitative textual data conform to categories under three different phases, i.e., Preimplementation, Implementation and Impact phases. The analysis aims at developing a theory by undertaking the core analytic tasks of description, comparison, categorisation, conceptualisation, as the critical outcome of the research. The verbatim transcripts and translation of the interviews and focus group discussions form the basis of textual data in this study, from which the codes were developed. Codes are essentially topics discussed by participants and identified through reading data (Hennink et al. 2011). On the basis of the codes from the textual data, the processes of comparison, categorisation and conceptualisation (linking categories) of the data have been undertaken, moving the analysis to a higher level of abstraction and providing the building blocks for theory development (Hennink et al. 2011). A matrix of theories and policy praxis has been attempted under each phase, which has eventually paved the way for developing a Context-ProcessOutcome Model as an outcome of this study. Before delving into that, it is worth tracing out the long preparatory journey of the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” before it was approved as a major public policy.

The Journey of Community Policing as a Policy Process in Kerala A policy process is a series of thoughts and actions that produce a policy decision. The first step in the policy process is agenda setting, that is to say, the decision to take up a policy problem for resolution. Agenda setting is followed by the detailing of the policy proposal sought to be submitted to the authority competent to approve the policy. Policy detailing is mainly a technical exercise. The content may be “packaged” with provision and cast in a language which is likely to enhance its acceptability. Detailing of the policy proposal is followed by the process that seeks to get the approval for the policy (Ayyar 2009).

132

CHAPTER FIVE

Agenda Setting In the year 2003, Sri A. K. Antony, the then Chief Minister (United Democratic Front) of Kerala constituted the Police Performance and Accountability Commission as per G.O. No.246/2003/Home dated 18/11/ 03 to evaluate the general performance of the police during the years 2002 and 2003 and to examine the effectiveness of the autonomy given to the police in recent times, its merits and demerits and to make recommendations for further improving the functioning and accountability of the police. The Commission was chaired by the former Supreme Court Justice K.T. Thomas. The Commission submitted its report in 2005, addressing a number of issues and giving its recommendations. The report, inter alia, strongly recommended the introduction of Community Policing by the Kerala Police. (See Box 5-1). Detailed recommendations have been included in AppendixE. Recommendations of the Police Performance and Accountability Commission, Kerala, 2005 “Community policing is a measure which can be strongly recommended for implementation in order to achieve transparency in the police administration. The police will have to evolve a mechanism for discussing crime prevention strategies with the members of the community by holding regular meetings. We understood that efforts have been taken on these lines by many of the democratic countries in the West. They are called by different appellations in different countries such as Community Consultative Committee, Citizens’ Advisory Council etc. Police can mobilise the resources of the community by involving civilians actively for intercepting or spotting criminal activities. We know that mobilisation of the community for supporting the police will have resistance in this state mainly because of the traditional antipathy of the common man towards the police. So it would take time to achieve the benefits of community policing. Even if there is no immediate result the scheme should be evolved and commenced without delay. The Director General of Police should designate a senior officer, preferably a very well trained officer, as Chief Coordinator of a scheme on community policing. It is not feasible to suggest the features of the scheme for different Districts. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the DGP shall prepare the scheme. This should be incorporated as part of the Police Manual.” (Para 3.66 of the Report).

Box 5.1 : Recommendations of Accountability Commission

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

133

Policy Window and the Political Stream Flowing independently from the problem and solution streams is the political stream, which comprises the public mood, election results, the relationship between major political parties in the legislative house and outside, and changes in the government. In the case of Kerala, the Police Performance and Accountability Commission was appointed by Sri A. K. Antony as the Chief Minister of Kerala (UDF) in the year 2003. When the Commission submitted its recommendations in March 2005, Sri Oommen Chandy (UDF) was the incumbent Chief Minister, following the resignation of Sri Antony in the previous year. Year 2005-06 was the election year for the 12th Legislative Assembly. The decision of the government on whether to introduce community policing might have been weighed against other pressing electoral agendas put before it, although both the Chief Ministers belonged to UDF. Here, two factors should be taken note of: firstly, the change of the incumbent Chief Minister and secondly, the pre-election political commitments set the tone of the political stream against any policy innovation. In the 12th Assembly elections in 2006, the Left Democratic Front got the mandate to form the government after defeating the UDF. Sri V. S. Achutanandan was sworn in as the Chief Minister and appointed a dynamic leader, Sri Kodeyari Balakrishnan, as his Home Minister. The police leadership pushed the agenda before the newly elected government. Buoyant with the fresh mandate, the new government was convinced to implement the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” (JSP) as the overarching community policing initiative of the state police. The window of opportunity (policy window) opened when the three separate streams of problem, solution and politics come together in August 2008. It was then that the JSP was officially launched in the state. Government Orders were issued, incorporating the Standard Operating Procedure for the JSP, budgetary allocations were provided, and a State Level Nodal Officer was appointed for training, monitoring and evaluation. Instead of state-wide implementation, pilot projects were initially preferred as a matter of policy. The policy was further institutionalised when Sri Oommen Chandy was sworn in as the Chief Minister in May 2011 as the UDF came back to power in the 13th Assembly elections. Twenty police stations were initially chosen for the implementation of the scheme, and this number mushroomed to 248 Police Stations in the year 2012 – this is a prime example of “strategic incrementalism”. The new government, having realised the constraints of manpower, increased the sanctioned strength of each Janamaithri police station by five civil police

134

CHAPTER FIVE

officers to be exclusively engaged as community police officers. The political stream came a full circle when Sri Oommen Chandy assumed office as the Chief Minister in the year 2011 to fulfil the unfinished agenda of his previous tenure in 2005. The role of policy entrepreneur here was played by the police leadership that pushed the agenda before the new political leadership in 2006 as well as other stake holders.

Policy Entrepreneurship Policy entrepreneurs wait for an opportune moment to push their ideas about problems and preferred solutions through; some of them are quite creative in even manufacturing an opportune moment to do so. Entrepreneurship encompasses both the psychological and competency aspects. The psychological aspects include the passion to achieve and be distinctive, perseverance, and the willingness to take risks and responsibility. The competency required for policy entrepreneurship encompasses an innovative approach to characterisation of policy problems, an innovative approach to the resolution of policy problems, the ability to translate that approach into a coherent policy proposal, a good assessment of situational contexts, a good knowledge of the system and the skills needed to push the policy proposal through the system (Hennink et al. 2011). Jacob Punnoose is from the 1975 batch of the Indian Police Service and was part of the Kerala cadre. Punnoose served in all the important assignments of the state police before becoming the state police chief in December 2008. He retired in August 2012 after an illustrious tenure of almost four years in that capacity. A long and stable tenure helped him in conceptualising, implementing and institutionalising the community policing scheme, JSP, in Kerala. When the “Performance and Accountability Commission” was constituted in the year 2003-04, Punnoose was posted to the State Human Rights Commission. Punnoose said in his interview, “I testified thrice before the Commission of my own, particularly with respect to the need of community policing. That time, I was in the State Human Rights Commission. I was not bound by any departmental restrictions. I spoke on the topic at nearly every Town and Hall of Kerala. Community policing as a concept was sold to the public. The Commission strongly recommended introduction of community policing in the state. It was the starting point.”

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

135

He strongly advocated to take the opposition political leadership on board and to arrive at a consensus on the issue, while most of his colleagues were sceptical on the issue. He said, “political parties are a reality in democracy. We cannot do away with them”. Besides, he reached out to other stake holders and the media to convince them about the benefits of the policy. He recalled, “Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers. I personally met Mr KM Mathew. It was a long meeting with the entire Editorial Board of ‘Malayalam Manorama’. This was a rare honour. He gave me two commitments, nothing will be published against Janamaithri in ‘Manorama’ and it would rather sponsor the programme. Politically, they were opposed to the LDF. In fact, it published on its website materials in favour of Janamaithri. I met and spoke to the editors of all major newspapers. Press supported the programme. Nobody made any effort to kill the baby (Janamaithri) at its birth.”

He was a true policy entrepreneur with the “strategic intent and vision”, “knowledge of the system”, and the “navigational skill” to push the policy proposal through. Janamaithri Suraksha Project was formally launched on 26 March 2008 by the then Chief Minister, Sri V.S. Achutanandan (LDF). Sri Kodeyari Balakrishnan, the then Home Minister and Sri Oommen Chandy, the Leader of Opposition (UDF) are also seen in the picture. It was during the tenure of Sri Chandy that the Justie K.T. Thomas Commission strongly recommended the implementation of community policing in the state. The ‘political stream’ then was not favourable for the ‘wondow of opportunity’ to open. The role of ‘policy entrepreneur’ here was played by the police leadership that pushed the agenda before the new political leadership in 2006 as well as other stake holders. The police leadership took both the ruling and opposition political leaders on board. The picutre became iconic for the JSP in the state. When Sri Chandy took office as the Chief Minister in 2011 for the second time, the policy got further boost in shape of its horizontal spread and additional resources. The JSP was extended to 100 more police stations and the sanctioned strength of each JSP was increased by five to meet the additional work load due to community policing.

Box 5.2 : Launching of the JSP

136

CHAPTER FIVE

Data Interpretation In this section, we have analysed the verbatim transcripts of the interviews and group discussions of all 119 participants, senior police officers (SO), uniformed community police officers (CPO: male and female), members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP: male and female) and Vanitha Jagaran Samithi (VJS). It captures the information in the participant’s own words, phrases and expressions, which provide a rich variety of detail on the research topic. Code is an issue, topic, idea, concept, process that is evident in the data. Codes are essentially topics discussed by participants and are developed by reading the data (Hennink et al. 2011). We have employed both deductive codes (concept from the research literature validated with data) and inductive codes (the issues raised by the participants) to come out with a set of parameters under the three different phases of policy process, i.e., preimplementation, implementation and impact phases.

Pre-implementation Phase Political Will A shorthand definition of political will is the commitment of actors to undertake actions to achieve a set of objectives and to sustain the costs of those actions over time. Political will can be separated into seven components: government initiative, choice of policy/programme based on technically sound, balanced consideration and analysis of options, anticipated outcomes and cost/benefits, mobilisation of stake holders, public commitment and allocation of resources, continuity of efforts, learning and adaption (Brinkerhoff and Crosby 2002). Quotes and Examples “Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas. The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme.” - SO “Political leaders were made to understand the benefits of CP initiatives but it was not so easy.”- CPO male “When our MLA took active interest in the Jana Maithri, things became different.” - JSS male

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

137

“Government’s will and support in the CP initiatives sustain our sense security and self-employment opportunities” - VJS “The Home Minister and other political leaders visited my police station on the occasion of ONAM.” - CPO male “In 2004 the Government of Kerala (UDF) appointed Justice K T Thomas Commission to evaluate the performance of policing in Kerala. The Commission strongly recommended introduction of community policing in the state. It was the starting point. By the time the Commission submitted its report in the year 2006 the government had been changed. The new government formed by the LDF was keen to implement the recommendations.” - SO “As such initiatives were difficult to be sustain and without support from the state police or from the Government. I met the then Home Minister discussed without the theme, he was very open to ideas and wanted me to experiment and show him the results.” – SO “When the Home Minister took interest and wished to have proper institutional arrangements for introduction of community policing, the scheme for the first time received patronage of the Government.” - SO

The statements made and the examples cited were assigned the scores due on the basis of intensity of participation and the degree of knowledge. Community Police Men each scored three points. One male member from JSS scored two points. Four Senior police officers (SO) scored three each with twelve points. Very high substantive scores of the senior police officer is indicative of the fact that “political will” for policy process is a critical factor requiring the attention of senior police officers rather than other stakeholders. Misconceptions in the Public Mind Misconceptions in public mind means the lenses through which the general populace over-read or under-read the police’s attitude and activities as having no bearing on or even being antithetical to their interests. The more the misconceptions in the public mind about the police, the more is the gap between the police and the public. Tackling the mind sets of the police as well as the public is one of the major tasks in the pre-implementation phase. One of the major tasks is establishing lasting community partnerships by overcoming the perception that the police alone are responsible for the implementation of community programmes and are solely accountable for

138

CHAPTER FIVE

the results. Department administrators must continually work to instil the mind-set among their officers that police forces cannot achieve success without encouraging the community to be an active participant in prevention, problem identification, problem solving, and evaluations of effectiveness. Similarly, community policing is also not to be misunderstood as community sharing the burden of police work. It is a process of working together for self-help. Community policing is most effective and most sustainable when meaningful partnerships develop between police departments and the community. In the year 2000, the Kerala Police drafted a similar scheme and trained its officers. However, it was opposed on the misconceived idea that the community will share the burden of police work. It was misinterpreted that the police is going to introduce a system of policing with the help of the community by which policing will be done by the community itself. So the program could not take off. A sustained campaign by the Kerala Police to allay the misconceptions in the minds of the public and to sell the idea to the public that they become partners with the police to prevent crime and maintain order in the neighbourhood ultimately paid dividends with the success of Janamaithri. Quotes and Examples “While convincing a member a senior member of the opposition he raised apprehension if the youth of the ruling party would dominate the process and initiatives.” - SO “Initially, there was reluctance by the residents to welcome the police to their houses for such visits. We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits.” - SO “There was a misconception in the minds of the public that it would be policing by the public. The police wish to abdicate its roles and responsibilities to the public.” - SO “Before introduction of JSP, when I used to visit my Beat, people used to offer me money because that was the impression of public about police visits. After we explained the objectives of JSP to the people and started visiting the houses the impression of the people has changed.” - CM/CW “Since our childhood we had been afraid of the police and would not dare enter a Police Station premises. Now with the JSP, such fear has been dispelled.” - SM

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

139

“Earlier I noticed middlemen and touts crowding the police station to ask favour for someone or to get someone’s genuine grievance redressed. But now, no such phenomenon was being noticed.” - SW/VJS “Earlier we were scared of the police and never disclosed any relevant information to the police out of the fear and indifference. Things have changed with community policing approach. We treat the police as friend now.” - SM

Scores assigned to the statements and examples indicated that eradicating misconceptions in the minds of the public is given due importance for the policy to deliver on its promise. Senior police officers strongly believe that the misconceptions in the minds of the public are to be removed and apprehensions allayed for wider acceptance of a change of policy. The frontline police officers also validate the hypothesis. Under misconceptions in the public mind, Senior Officers scored three each amounting to nine points, Community Police Women scored three points out of which one scored two and one scored one, Community Police Men scored four points out of which one scored two and two others scored one each, one Vanita Jagaran Samiti member scored two points, Samiti Women scored only one and Samiti Men scored one. Even the members of the public realise the same, although with average substantiation as compared to the police personnel. Predecessor-Successor Syndrome Predecessor/Successor Syndrome was a major obstacle at the pre-take off stage of the CP initiatives. When an incumbent joins a new post and succeeds his predecessor, he shows a general tendency not to follow the predecessor’s legacy and attempts something new. In the process, a brilliant initiative of the predecessor is given a premature obituary. However, with institutional arrangements in place, a programme or an initiative continues uninterrupted, irrespective of the incumbent. Here, the system nullifies personal aberrations. The police circulars 34 and 35 of 2009 (see AppendixI) were issued by the DGP to ensure coordinated and regular action and uniformity in application. This would serve as a guiding principle for the incumbents to achieve minimum levels of performance and more importantly, not allow the policy to be abused. To acquire greater legitimacy, the SOPs for JSP were issued in the form of Government Orders (see Appendix-F). A State Level Nodal officer was appointed by the government to select, train, monitor and evaluate the programme. The Nodal Officer laid down the selection criteria for the Beat Officers, chalked out the training module for

140

CHAPTER FIVE

them and organised seminars and workshops involving various stake-holders. Budgetary provisions were made by the government for the implementation of the scheme. Apart from showing the commitment and intent of the government, such a step ensured that the project would not suffer from the whims and fancies of the incumbent officer. Quotes and Examples “One senior officer had apprehensions if the programme can be sustainable after the successor takes over without institutional arrangements, such as rules, constant monitoring by the State-level Nodal Officer and the availability of government funds. Whoever be the successor has to continue with the scheme, if institutionalised.” - SO “Yes, initially it was a problem. Honest discharge of institutionalised duties through a centrally monitored mechanism by a state level nodal officer does not require any concern towards the good or evils of the so called predecessorsuccessor syndrome.” - SO “With publication of the Government orders and police circulars, budgetary provisions and monitoring by nodal officer, a successor is duty bound to implement the scheme, even though he is unable to match the zeal of his predecessor.” - SO “Earlier a lot of initiatives were taken by the police officers but could not survive incumbents because of lack of institutional arrangements.” - SO “Yes, since 2001, members of the resident association used to meet the police chief at his office. Some police chiefs discontinued the practice. But with JSP, things are in place.” - CM “I do my duties as a CPO in accordance with the Government orders and police circulars. Change of incumbent does not make any difference.” CW

The predecessor-successor syndrome is nonetheless a serious obstacle to be wary of. Frequent transfers and a premature obituary to the brilliant initiatives of the predecessor are dangerous and against public interest. The aggregate scores were revealing. The predecessor-successor syndrome is to be addressed for the sustenance of a new policy. The senior police officers (Three senior officers scored three each with a total of nine points) strongly feel that the policy should be in the nature of “due process” instead of an

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

141

“informal process”. Strategic efforts by them ensured that the project did not suffer from the whims and fancies of the new incumbent police officer. The women members of JSS (scored four points) and the community police officers (scored four points as well) validate the same. Developing Trust-Community Empowerment Building and maintaining community trust is the cornerstone of successful policing and ethical law enforcement (Bayley 2005). The building and maintenance of trust takes a great deal of continuous effort. Law enforcement agencies can be accountable to their citizens by engaging them in any number of trust-building initiatives. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent on the public approval of police existence, actions, behaviour, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect (Peelian consensual system). Community policing empowers and encourages the citizens to resolve their neighbourhood problems through their own initiatives. It is an invitation to the people to contribute their efforts to day-to-day policing. It also means that people volunteer their time for the good of the community. It will also mean that people will be asked to solve problems themselves, rather than turn to the police for formal help every single time. Community policing is a way to remind everyone that it is a mutual partnership to help make the area a safe and attractive place to live and work in (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1994). Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organisations they serve develop solutions to problems and increase trust in the police (COP, Department of Justice, USA). The police must take specific steps to increase the capacity of communities to exert informal social control (Wilson & Kelling 1982). Community empowerment is the process of enabling people to shape and choose the services they use on a personal level so that they can influence the manner in which those services are delivered. It is often used in the same context as community engagement, which refers to practical techniques of involving local people in local decisions, and especially reaching out to those who feel alienated from public decision-making. Community policing is an agent of empowerment, creating a sense of joint responsibility and a joint capacity for addressing issues of concern to the community and police personnel. Janamaithri Suraksha Project introduces a new “level” between the public authority and scattered individual citizens, notably district or neighbourhood consultation, where dialogue or participation is organised and accountability follows as a natural consequence. Consequently, a new source of re-quests

142

CHAPTER FIVE

to the police and of bringing the police into action gets created. So far, the police were politically responsible to the government authorities and responsible to the individuals from an operational point of view. Community policing realigns this traditional sharing of power over the police and establishes a new form of social contract between the police and society. In the process, it has empowered the community by giving them a say in decision making and influencing the policing they prefer. One of the women empowerment programmes under the overarching JSP models is Vanitha Jagaran Samithi, literally translated as the women empowerment group (see Box 5.3). The introduction of the Reception Desk at the Janamaithri police station and CCTV in the lock-up rooms was intended to reduce the trust deficit between the police and public. Quotes and Examples “The essence of community policing is to minimise the gap between the policemen and the citizens to such an extent that policemen become an integral part of the community they serve. Here, police serves as a catalyst and the people accept their share of responsibility for solving local problems related to crime, disorder and security.” - SO “We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits. The visits and rapport between the residents and the Beat Officer was meant to bridge the gap between the community and the police.” - SO “The trust level of the public on the police organisation has gone up after the introduction of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. Having enjoyed the public trust and appreciation, the self-esteem of the Beat Officers has also enhanced to the advantage of the organization.” - SO “With the advent of this program we have become closer to the police. Since our childhood we had been afraid of the police and would not dare enter a Police Station premises. Now, with the JSP, such fear has been dispelled.” - SM “We have easy access to the police station. We can bring any problem of our locality to the notice of the Beat Officer at any moment. We have his cell number and he encourages us to talk to him.” - SM “We treat them (beat police officers) as our friends and brothers. We have always welcomed them for house visit because we feel that that is meant for our wellbeing.” - SW

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

143

“By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS (Vanitha Jagaran Samiti) meetings, they (members) feel closer to the police” - VJS

Scores against this parameter on community empowerment revealed its urgency and necessity. Senior officers, members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi and Vanitha Jagaran Samithi score very high on this parameter. This reinforces the notion that developing trust in the pre-implementation phase is crucial to community policing initiatives. The strong score of the members of the public validate the hypothesis of community empowerment as an essential component of community policing. Besides, the substantive participation scores (very high) of members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi and Vanitha Jagaran Samithi underpin the fact that JSP succeeded in empowering the public. Thus, with regard to developing trust and community empowerment, senior officers scored three each totalling to nine points, one community police woman scored one point, one community police man scored one, one Vanita Jagaran Samiti member scored three points, one Samiti woman scored three points and two Samiti Men scored three each with a total of six points. Vanitha Jagaran Samithi, Fort Cochi Police Station Vanitha Jagaran Samithi (VJS) is an all women organization comprising women members from within the jurisdiction of police station. There are 50 members at present. The objective of the Samithi is to help the poor and destitute women, to give legal support to victims of domestic violence, to undertake counselling and reconciliation processes, charity activities etc. Once in every month the members meet at the Janamaithri Kendra of Fort Cochi Police Station to review the activities and to plan for the next month. Helping juvenile delinquents, destitute women and charity are the main activities VJS. Sometimes they invite professional counsellors to offer counselling to estranged couples. The members closely interact with the Community Police Officers (CPOs) of their respective Beats. By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS meetings they feel closer to the police. Their sense of security has gone up. They feel secured when moving in their neighborhood.

Box 5.3 : Vanitha Jagaran Samithi

144

CHAPTER FIVE

Engaging Stake Holders In a free and democratic society, citizens are supposed to have a say in how they are governed. The police is required to be responsive as well as accountable. The restructuring of policing priorities according to public expectations is an important component. This means opening channels of communication with all the stake-holders of the society and not merely the “community leaders”, and using their goodwill and help in preventing crime and disorder. In a democratic set up like ours, the “political will” to introduce a new philosophy in policing in the form of community policing is critical for the success of the scheme. Not only the members of the ruling party but the members of the opposition political parties as well are to be taken into confidence so that in the long run, the scheme does not suffer due to the lack of political patronage. The members of the public, police leaders, the media, academics, voluntary organisations and a cross-section of all stake holders should be taken on board for the success of the community policing initiative. The political leadership, members of the public, the media, non-profit organisations, social workers, academics and bureaucrats were engaged during the pre-implementation phase to sell the concept. “The government of Kerala was very particular about a dialogue and consultation with each and every section of the society, before finalising on what to do”, says Mrs. B. Sandhya, IPS, the State Level Nodal Officer for community policing (see Box 5.4). The police leadership virtually left no stone unturned to engage all the stakeholders and bring about a consensus on the implementation strategy. “In fact, the name of the scheme, ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi’ was an outcome of multi-stage consultations with all the stakeholders”, asserts Mrs. Sandhya. Quotes and Examples “The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists, members of the planning commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee) in the year 2007.” - SO “We invited leaders of all political parties, irrespective of whether it is the ruling party or opposition political parties. The Chief Minister and the leader of opposition were also invited to attend meeting.” - SO

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

145

“At the end of the meeting there was consensus that such a scheme should be implemented in the State under the banner Janamaithri Surashkha Project (JSP). Final draft was agreed upon by the Government after taking into account the suggestions offered by different stakeholders.” - SO “I met both the Home Minister and the then leader of the opposition, who is now the Chief Minister of the state, and discussed with them on the modalities of implementation.”- SO “After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised to the input we received from the stake-holders.” - SO

The strategic engaging of stake holders delivers goods as evidenced in the case of Janamaithri Surashkha Project (JSP). On the whole, the very high substantive score of the senior officers and average strength of the stake holders show that senior police officers as policy entrepreneurs took the initiative to engage various opinion makes and stake-holders to bring about a consensus on an introduction to community policing during the pre-implementation phase. Five senior officers scored three each aggregating to the highest score of fifteen points. Besides, community police women, community police men, Vanita Jagaran Samiti member, Samiti women and Samiti men all scored one each. Excerpts from the Diary of Nodal Officer, B. Sandhya, IPS, State Level Nodal Officer : “In Kerala, the society is extremely sceptical about anything new. When the draft scheme was circulated, many eyebrows were raised. However we reiterated that it is only a draft and anybody interested has a stake in finalising the scheme and that everybody is free and welcome to put forward their suggestions through email or post. The State Level Consultation was held under the leadership of the Home Minister, the Opposition Leader and Justice K.T. Thomas at the Government Guest House, Thiruvananthapuram in September 2007. There was participation of all Political Party State Level Leaders, intellectuals, sociologists, journalists, literary figures, Planning Board members, members of NGOs and each and every section of the society was well represented in the Consultation Meeting. Many Officers who are pioneers in Community Policing Projects throughout the length and breadth of the Country were invited to share their experiences.Many an apprehension was shared in

146

CHAPTER FIVE

the meeting by various dignitaries. There were divided opinions and heated discussions. But by the end of the day long sessions, there was a consensus on the point that we needed a Community Policing Project to make a more secure and safer neighbourhood and society. Everybody was requested to e-mail or post their well thought out written suggestions also.Those who attended the Consultation and studied the draft project were very positive during their private conversations with me. This was followed by a State Level Seminar with the participation of Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Municipal Chairmen and Officers of the places where pilot project was planned.” Box 5.4 : Diary of Nodal Officer Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Planning, coordination, execution and feedback are different stages of implementation of this scheme. When the overarching community policing scheme, “Janamaithri”, was decided to be implemented in the state of Kerala, a conscious and deliberate decision was taken to start the programme in 20 pilot police stations of the state and to scale it up later. Community policing is a man power intensive scheme. Shortage of man power was addressed in due course by creating extra posts for Janamaithri police stations. The selection criteria for Community Police Officers were laid down with emphasis on integrity, good service records, addiction free habits and voluntary attitude. Trained police officers are engaged as community police officers. A common training curriculum was chalked out. Senior police officers were earmarked as training resource persons. A state level nodal officer was appointed by the government to closely monitor the training and implementation phase. From 20 pilot police Stations, the programme has been extended to nearly 248 police Stations at present within a span of four years. The strength of each Janamathri police station was increased by five to cope with the work load. In the decision making process, an approach of “incrementalism” was adopted. Though incrementalism is associated with a conservative approach to decision-making, there is nothing in the concept that prevents many large steps being taken together when the situation warrants, and when the policy makers have the requisite confidence that there is sufficient knowledge (Lindblom). In Kerala, the decision to go for pilot projects and then scale up the scheme in over four years is an example of incrementalism. Community policing training is very different from traditional training. It involves learning to think critically, to solve problems and to share responsibilities with citizens and is not fostered by authoritarian or non-

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

147

interactive training techniques. A department that plans to undertake the implementation of community policing will have to shift police training from the current model of mastery of technical skills and obedience to a focus on empowerment (Trojanowicz and Bucqeroux 1994). The training curriculum for the police officers should include familiarity with the community they are to serve, techniques of crime prevention and conflict resolution, police philosophy and culture, techniques to handle physical and mental stress, self-awareness, ethics and development of human values (Palmiotto et al. 2000; Choudhury 2009). The training syllabus for JSP was simplistic, yet it constituted a remarkable attempt on the part of the police leadership to have recognised the difference. Quotes and Examples “On the recommendation of the DGP, the State Government notified me as the State Level Nodal Officer for the (JSP) Janamaithri Suraksha Project, since 2007. Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped ironing out a number of teething problems.” - SO “Budgetary provisions for the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralised training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project. The training was conducted centrally at the police training colleges.” - SO “Now sanction of additional posts have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1 (one) female police officers.” - SO “The initial success of the JSP was largely due to the Beat Officers. The 150 beat officers selected initially to act as Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas.” - SO “We have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in the form of GOs by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 & 65). We have redefined the functions of the police in the Act, making them more in sync with the objectives of the community policing.” - SO

148

CHAPTER FIVE

“As of today, we have 148 police stations covered under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. We will be extending the scheme to a hundred more police stations by March, 2013.” - SO

Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training indicate the strategic issues to be dealt with beforehand for policy formulation, which lie within the domain of the leaders of the organisation. Hence, a very high substantive score for the senior police officers (all six scoring eighteen points in total). The stake holders, like members of JSS and VJS substantiate the parameters, although not as a part of the organisation that has the prime responsibility to implement the policy. Publicity and Propaganda Publicity and propaganda are deliberate and guided campaigns to induce the masses to accept and act on a given idea. The success attained by CP initiatives today is mainly due to adequate publicity and due propaganda. The publicity messages were made more potent by incorporating opposing arguments in a way that tended to discredit them. Such strategy really worked because the stake holders were given the impression that the ultimate benefit shall go to them and them only. Care was taken to guard against deliberate lies, double talk, omission of facts, distortion of facts, exaggeration and prejudiced appeals by certain community members. The police authorities took all the stakeholders on board, held seminars and workshops to disseminate the concept, clear disinformation and allay apprehensions. The DGP of Kerala and the Nodal Officer visited all the districts where the pilots are to be implemented and engaged the political leaders, opinion makers, the media and other stake-holders for dialogue and consultations. Publication of success stories in the media, radio dramas, street plays, the website of the state police and many district police organisations and even of a leading newspaper of the state carrying positive aspects of the JSP helped create a favourable image in the public. The logo of the JSP gave it an identity of its own. Quotes and Examples “Draft community policing scheme was prepared by the Kerala Police and submitted to the Government. The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalist, members of the planning commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee).” - SO

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

149

“We invited the MLAs/Urban Body Chairpersons having jurisdiction over those Police Stations and conducted a workshop. The Home Minister was present in the Workshop. All the apprehension of the people’s representatives were addressed and allayed.” - SO “In 2007 we prepared a draft community policing framework and presented it to the government. After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised according to the input we received from the stake-holders.” - SO “We used multiple strategies towards publicity.” - CW “Members of civil society arranged street plays.” - SW and CW “Student Police Cadet initiatives gave us students CP ambassadors.” - SO “Women in the area stated discussing the benefits of community policing.” - VJS and SW “Publication of success stories in newspapers encouraged us to devote more time.” - CM and SM

The success attained by Janamaithri Suraksha Project initiatives today is mainly due to adequate publicity and due propaganda well taken care of from the very beginning. Very high scores of senior police officers goes to show that they took initiatives and efforts for deliberate and guided campaign to reach out to the public and convince them about the positive effects of the Janamaithri scheme. The stake-holders like the members of JSS and VJS also validate that they knew about the scheme from such publicity and campaign. The score chart reveals that three senior officers scored three each totalling to nine points. Besides, community police women, community police men Vanita Jagaran Samiti member, samiti women and samiti men scored one each.

Implementation Phase Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures For any policy to be implemented properly with its avowed objectives and with uniform application irrespective of the incumbent, a set of guidelines has to be necessarily spelled out. These guidelines may be published in the form of Police Orders issued by the DGP of the State or by

150

CHAPTER FIVE

the Administrative Department of the Government, e.g., Home Department in this case. They may be termed as Standard Operating Procedures. These SoPs serve as guidelines both for the political executives and bureaucrats. In Kerala, the guidelines for implementation of the community policing scheme, Janamaithri Suraksha Project, were issued and consolidated for over two years, starting with G.O. No 3161/Home dated 23.11.2007, which briefly spells out the introduction of Community Policing Scheme in the State and holding of Workshops, Seminars, distribution of publicity materials and training of police personnel with budgetary provision (see AppendixF). Subsequently, the Government published elaborate guidelines and dos & don’ts in GO No107/2008/Home dated 21.06.2008 (see Appendix-A). The DGP, Kerala issued Circular No. 34/2009 dated 20.08.2009 and Circular No. 35/2009 dated 21.08.2009, enjoining the detailed guidelines of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the role and responsibilities of the Community Police Officers and that of Janamathri Suraksha Samithis. All these government orders and circulars helped consolidate the implementation of the scheme. Quotes and Examples “We have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in the form of GOs by the state government.” - SO “With the institutional support, police circulars and GOs and constant monitoring by the State Level Nodal Officer and the availability of government funds under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, whoever be the successor has to continue with the scheme.” - SO “Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralised training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project.” - SO “As many as 10 Government Orders have been issued as operational manuals for the scheme.” - SO “The Police Circulars issued by the DGP serve as the guidelines for the beat officers.” - A Community Relation Officer of a Police Station “The circulars issued by the Police Headquarters serve as the Standard Operating Procedure for us irrespective of our postings.” - A Community Police Officer

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

151

“The activities of Vanitha Jagaran Samithi are governed by the guidelines issued by the DGP in form of circulars.” - A woman Community Police Officer on the occasion of Onam

While assigning scores to the types of participation and the veracity of the statements made, it is found that one Community Police Woman scored one point, a Community Police Man scored two points and statements made by four Senior Officers deserved twelve points in total, with three for each. Standard Operating Procedures are the institutionalised implementable set of policy guidelines published in the form of Police Orders issued by the DGP of the State or by the Administrative Department of the Government, e.g., Home Department in this case with its avowed objectives for uniform application by political executives, bureaucracy and other stakeholders irrespective of the incumbent in a position to implement. All the government orders and circulars along with holding of Workshops, Seminars, distribution of publicity materials and training of police personnel helped consolidate the implementation of the scheme. The high substantive participation score of the Senior Police Officers underpin the fact that the political and police leadership played a critical role in operationalisation of the SoPs. From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation Pilot implementation is one of the key strategies to evaluate the efficacy of any new project. Pilot projects make evaluation and analysis easier and help in further developing the concept. “Piloting” of a CP project is defined as an activity planned as a test or trial for the implementation of the concept and its actionable dimensions on a small controlled scale to allow for its full impact, benefits and weaknesses to be evaluated before implementation on a larger scale. Pilot Project is a dynamic collection of professionals who co-create inventive, tangible, fully functional and sustainable solutions to complex problems. In Kerala, there are twenty police districts, but the police leadership suggested introducing Janamaithri Surashka Projects in fourteen police districts initially, limiting the scheme to twenty police stations. On the Janamaithri Suraksha Project proposal of the Police Department being accepted by the Government, a Government Order to that effect (G.O. (Rt) No.3161/2007/Home dated 23.11.2007) was issued for implementation of the project in 20 selected Police Stations. It was formally inaugurated by the then Chief Minister, Sri V.S. Achyutanandan on 26 March 2008. It was extended to 21 more Police Stations in 2009 (GO Rt NO. 1452/2009 Dtd.22.05.2009). Subsequently, the scheme was introduced in 107 police stations of the state vide GO (Rt) No 3472/2012 Home dt 18.11.2010,

152

CHAPTER FIVE

bringing the total number of police stations covered under Janamaithri scheme to 148. Having assessed the popularity and acceptance of the scheme by the public, the Kerala government further extended the scheme to 100 more police stations in GO (Rt) 3424/2012/Home dated 20.11.2012. The idea was to market the positive effects of the Scheme among the public and generate demands from the people of the neighbouring Police Stations through their representatives for introduction of the scheme in their respective police stations. In the process, the police leadership can bargain with the government for more resources for the effective implementation of the scheme in new areas. Quotes and Examples “The government decided to implement the project in 20 police stations of the state as a pilot. The 150 beat officers selected initially to act as Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas. The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme.” - SO “It was decided that the scheme would be implement in twenty selected Police Station as Pilot project. As of today, we have 148 police stations covered under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. We will be extending the scheme to a hundred more police stations by March, 2013.” - SO “Now, the sanction of additional posts has been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1 (one) female police officers.” - SO “Pilot projects helped us in showcasing our initiatives on community policing till the concept was whole-heartedly accepted by the political leadership.” SO “With only 20 to start with, we have committed to implement the scheme in 248 Police Stations.” - SO

It only shows that the idea of “pilot to whole” was well-conceived. The response was only from four senior officers who scored three each totalling to twelve points. The high substantive score of the senior police officers testifies the role of policy entrepreneurs in the pilot to scaling up as well as the strategy of incrementalism (Lindblom)

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

153

Hand-holding Hand holding is an expression that means providing someone with guidance, assistance, encouragement or aid and support to lessen anxiety. In the context of the implementation of a new, government sponsored scheme like the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the top police leadership is expected to constantly guide, aid, support and patronise the scheme at the initial phase of implementation to overcome the teething problems and make way for wider acceptance by the public. In Kerala, the senior police officers passionately played this role till the Project received wider political and public acceptance with scaling up from pilot to state wide implementation. Starting from selection, training, monitoring and evaluation of the beat police officers, the State Level Nodal Officer played the role of a mentor, constantly guiding and motivating the front line officers in the department (Key concepts of Organisational Behaviour theories and Motivational theories). In the language of the State Nodal Officer, “it was like a new born baby to be taken care of every minute”. Quotes and Examples “We trained the police officers of those police stations before formal launch of the project in Mar 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers.” - SO. “We carefully selected the police officers who would be manning the beats and coordinating the activities as Community relation Officers.” - SO “We chalked out exclusive training programmes for the police officers at the State Police Academy and at the Police Training College.” - SO “We chalked out a short duration training programme for the community police officers and officers of Janamathri police Stations. We conducted district level workshops inviting all stakeholders and introduced the beat officers to the members of public.” - SO “Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped iron out a number of teething problems.” - SO “During the training the police officers cleared lot of doubts on the nitty gritty of Janamaithri Suraksha Project. I circulated my phone number to all the beat officers for any problem or to solve any doubt.” - SO

154

CHAPTER FIVE

“It was just like a new born baby to be taken care of every minute.” - SO

The very high substantive scores of senior police officers and virtually no scores in respect of other groups shows that hand-holding and mentoring would remain the exclusive domain of the departmental brass (organisational behaviour & motivational theories). Service Delivery Strategies and Standardisation of Service Delivery Service delivery is the implementation of those services and making sure that they reach those people and places they are intended to. Strategy is all about integrating organisational activities and utilising and allocating the scarce resources within the organisational environment so as to meet the present objectives. While planning a strategy, it is essential to consider that decisions are not taken in a vacuum and that any act taken by the organisation is likely to be met by a reaction from those affected, be it employees or political executives. Standardisation of the service delivery involves developing a prototype model that fits into all areas after addressing the concerns of all stake-holders. The implementation strategy of Janamaithri project was based on a threetier structure: the beat police, the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi and the District Advisory Committee. The Beat Police constituted the fulcrum along which the system is required to revolve. The “house visit” by the beat police officer offered personalised police service. The police forged a partnership with the public in addressing crime prevention measures, developing solutions to other neighbourhood problems and increasing the trust coefficient (Bayley et al. ). The duties and responsibilities of the Beat officer and Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi are laid out in the form of government orders to serve as Standard Operating Procedures. As regards the policy processes, the theories of decision making and implementation in government (Allison and Elmore ) met with the praxis. Quotes and Examples “It took a sustained and long term campaign to sell the idea to all stake holders including the police hierarchy.” - SO “After it (the draft proposal) was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised to include the input we received from the stake-holders.” - SO

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

155

“In 2007 we conducted a state-level workshop involving police officers from rest of India who have experience in community policing. Their inputs were integrated in our draft to make it more implementable.” - SO “The government decided to implement the project in 20 police stations of the state as pilot. We trained the police officers of those police stations before the formal launch of the project in March 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers.” - SO “Yes, we have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in the form of GOs by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 & 65).” - SO “The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists, members of the planning commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee) in the year 2007.” - SO

On the whole, the high substantive score of the senior police officers is indicative of the role of senior managers of the department and of the government in strategising and standardising service delivery processes. The response was only from six senior officers who scored three each totalling to the highest aggregate of eighteen points. Resource Augmentation Policing is always fraught with acute resource crunches like manpower and finances. Implementation of a manpower intensive scheme like Janamaithri must have posed serious challenges to the police leadership on how to cope with such constraints. Government support to augment the resources is often conditional upon the successful implementation of a scheme like Janamaithri. The police leadership in Kerala succeeded in motivating its officers and constabulary to overcome such resource constraints at the initial stage of implementation of Janamaithri with the hope that once accepted by the people and political leadership, it would have the leverage to press for the creation of additional manpower and provision for funds. In fact, this is exactly what happened during the subsequent phase when the scheme was extended to other police stations of the State. Extra manpower for each Janamaithri police station was created and budgetary provisions were made for the scheme by the government.

156

CHAPTER FIVE

Budgetary allocations and sanction of additional manpower for the Janamaithri project are reflective of the political commitment of the government for the project. The police leadership, bureaucrats, government departments and the department Minister bargained with each other in the decision making process to arrive at a “satisficing” allocation of resources (Allison). Quotes and Examples “Now sanction of additional posts have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1 (one) female police officer.” - SO “As the community policing has been legally mandated as per the provision of the Kerala Police Act, the budgetary allocation would be part of the police budget under non-plan scheme.” - SO “The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme. We had the leverage to press for extra manpower and funds.” - SO “Initially, we found it difficult to manage the Janamaithri with the existing manpower as it was already hard-pressed. But with increase in sanctioned strength of the manpower and budgetary support we find things easier.” - A public relations officer

The high substantive score of the senior officers of the police department here again reflects the role of police and policy entrepreneurs in the decision making process of the government. Monitoring and Controlling Monitoring and controlling consists of those processes performed to observe project execution so that potential problems can be identified in a timely manner and corrective action can be taken, when necessary, to control the execution of the project. Monitoring and controlling includes: i. Measuring the ongoing project activities (where we are); ii. Monitoring the project variables (effort, scope, etc.) against the project management plan and the project performance baseline (where we should be); and iii. Identifying corrective actions to address issues and risks properly (how can we get on track again).

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

157

Quotes and Examples “We trained the police officers of those police stations before the formal launch of the project in March 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers.” - SO “Government appointed Dr B Sandhya, IGP as the nodal officer for the JSP. It helped us in controlling and coordinating the program uniformly from the headquarters.” - SO “Initially, there was reluctance by the residents to welcome the police to their houses for such visits. We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits.” - SO “The workshop was very intensive and the questions raised by any member were to be discussed threadbare and answered properly. The suspicions and apprehensions were to be properly allayed.” - SO “Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped iron out a number of teething problems.” - SO “After a few months we could standardise the number of house visits per day in urban and rural areas.” - SO “The Beat Officer has been specially selected by the district Superintendent of Police and other supervisory officers. Traits like communication skill, temperament, integrity etc. are criteria for selecting a beat officer.” - SO “The do’s and don’ts helped us to focus on our objectives.” - CM

During the process of implementation of the Janamaithri Project, the core group headed by the State Nodal Officer, a senior police officer in the rank of IGP, was constantly monitoring the project. This included laying down criteria for the selection of community police officers, training modules, holding of seminars and workshops with the stake-holders, time to be spent for house visits, dos’ and don’ts for community police officers etc. At appropriate instances, corrective actions were taken to address the issues and concerns that emerged in the course of implementation. The high substantive score of the senior police officers goes to show that they, as senior managers, are required to apply the concepts of management principles in policy implementation. Five senior officers scored three each,

158

CHAPTER FIVE

totalling fifteen points. Besides, one community police man scored two points. Political Acceptance In a parliamentary democracy like India, the success of a new public policy is largely reliant on the political will and consensus. A policy that gets the seal of approval of the opposition political parties is likely to survive the successor-predecessor syndrome. A proposal initiated by the executives should ideally have been approved not only by the government of the day but should have the tacit support of the opposition political parties. In Kerala, the police leadership had the acumen and foresight to gauge the political dynamics of policy making. It took all the stake holders on board, including the opposition political parties, before launching Janamaithri. Political acceptance of the scheme by all political parties including the ruling dispensation enabled the scheme to survive the change of government thrice during its evolution and implementation phases. The processes involved in getting political acceptance were: i. The CM and the members of ruling party agreed on the strategy; ii. Members of legislature demanded a discussion on the issue; iii. Identification and motivation of influential champions from Opposition parties; iv. Opposition entered into debate and dialogue; v. Hard work of the task force to convince cross sections; and vi. Use of media interviews and opinion for political and public acceptance. Quotes and Examples “Even a cross section of opposition political parties spread the disinformation that the youth wing of the ruling political party will be delegated the policing functions of the state. There was wide-spread criticism of the scheme. Finally the Government dropped the idea.” - SO “It took a sustained and long term campaign to sell the idea to all the stake holders including the police hierarchy.” - SO “In 2004 the Government of Kerala (UDF) appointed the Justice K T Thomas Commission to evaluate the performance of policing in Kerala. By the time the Commission submitted its report in the year 2006, the government had been changed. The new government formed by the LDF was keen to implement the recommendations.” - SO

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

159

“I met both the Home Minister and then leader of the opposition, who is now the Chief Minister of the state, and discussed with them the modalities of implementation.” - SO “After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc.” - SO “After deciding the police stations we invited the MLAs/Urban Body Chairpersons having jurisdiction over those Police Stations and conducted a workshop.” - SO “Draft community policing scheme was prepared by the Kerala Police and submitted to the Government. The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists.” - SO

The score seems to be highly skewed for the reason that the senior police officers, as policy entrepreneurs, strongly felt that without political acceptance and consensus, a policy change or paradigm shift in the organisational mission statement would be impossible. In Kerala, the police leadership skilfully managed these political dynamics of policy making. There is an interesting lesson to learn here - the scheme survived the change of government thrice during the evolution and implementation phase of Janamaithri Project.

Impact Phase Bridging the Gap between the Police and the Public: A Decentralised Partnership As an alternative policing strategy that is adopted worldwide, community policing advocates the forging of a problem solving partnership between the police and the public (Trojanowicz ). Community policing revolves round the principle of pro-active policing through people friendly policing practices, community participation and problem solving, leading to crime prevention and maintenance of order (Bayley). Community policing allows the law enforcement agency to get back to the principles upon which it was founded and to integrate itself into the fabric of the community so that the people and the police collaborate even before a serious problem arises (Peelian Consensual Theory). Here, the police acts as a catalyst in the social engineering experiment.

160

CHAPTER FIVE

The system of house visit made the police service personalised and helped transform the police from an anonymous and impersonal establishment into an altogether more humane organisation. The Beat police officers circulated their contact number amongst the residents they were required to serve. The people felt that the police is just a call away. The Cochin city police introduced a number of innovative schemes in collaboration with the Merchants’ Association, private security guards, and the students. Extortion was on the decline, suspicious activities in the shopping malls and in the business districts were reported and private traffic wardens supplemented the resources of the police by addressing minor traffic offences. The sense of security of the general public increased and the gap between the public and the police narrowed down. Quotes and Examples “We introduced the system of ‘house visit’ by the beat officers in his/her respective beat and ensured that he/she covered all the houses in the beat within a given time frame. The visits and rapport between the residents and the Beat Officer were meant to bridge the gap between the community and the police.” - SO “In 2011 we solved 98% of the unknown murder cases in Kerala, a figure which is much above the national average. Thanks to the community policing schemes, people now come forward to inform the police on the clues they are privy to. When the public feel that they own the legal system, the level of co-operation is very high.” - SO “Marade, a highly communally sensitive place in Calicut city is a transformed place today, thanks to introduction of community policing in the area since 2006.” - A senior police officer “We want to operate in an environment where the Beat Officer can enter his Beat without any police force because he will be protected by the majority of the community.” - SO “Similarly, the Merchants’ Association took steps to resist extortion by local anti-social element with the help of local police. They also sponsored traffic wardens and signage in their respective areas for orderly parking of the vehicles.” - SO “The private security personnel responded favourably to our training programme and started giving information on suspicious matter to the local

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS SHO. In fact, they acted like the eyes and ears of the police organisation.” - SO “The beat officer also attends all the social functions in our area. He is now part of our community. The beat officer has developed a bond not only with the community leaders but with the common man. Besides the fact that police is just a call away created a fear among antisocials and criminals.” A JSS Member “In our area the incidences of theft and burglary have gone down. Crime reporting has also decreased.” - A JSS Member “In our area there are three working women hostels. Earlier anti-social activities, eve-teasing, and chain snatching were regularly reported from the locality. But, such activities have completely stopped after the JSP.” - A JSS Member “As the beat officers have intimate knowledge about the area, route and the neighbourhood, they inform the local residents of the neighbourhood to keep watch on the development till their arrival.” - A Community Relation Officer “In our area the women and girls go for morning walk without any threat of the chain being snatched. As a former Councillor I feel that the Beat Officer is as popular as a good public representative.” - A female JSS member “By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS, they feel closer to the police. Their sense of security has gone up. They feel secure when moving in their neighbourhood.” - a VJS Member “Earlier people did not reveal any information because they were suspicious of us. Now people have developed confidence in us for which they reveal information to us. The negative image of the police in the minds of people has changed. All these things have made our job easier.” - A community relation officer “We feel closer to the community and also the community feels the same.” - A community police officer “The crime has reduced in our locality because of alertness of the Beat officers and cooperation of the members of the association. We immediately pass on information to Beat Officers who act on our information with promptness. This has created fear among law breakers.” - A JSS member

161

162

CHAPTER FIVE

Thus the police, as a catalyst in the social engineering experiment, is effective only when there is a death of the distance between the police and the public, the culture of working together is demonstrated and a decentralisation-partnership takes roots. All the stake holders and agencies under the scheme tend to agree that they have a role to play and more so with the police leadership. While assigning scores on keeping the nature of participation and the strength of the statements made, one Samiti Woman and VJS scored one point each, two Samiti Men scored two each totalling four and one Samiti Man scored three with three Community Police Men scoring two each. Senior officers had a greater say genuinely on the basis of the types of efforts put in and six of them scored three each, amounting to a total of eighteen. The very high substantive score of the score of Senior police officers and of members of Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi, high score of community police officers and of members of JSS validate these findings. Overall Heightened Sense of Security A sense of security refers to a generally conscious awareness of protection and safety. Community Policing is expected to increase the sense of security of the common citizen by making the police more accessible, pro-active and visible by removing the veil of anonymity from the face of the police. With the Janamathri Suraksha Project, the residents got an opportunity to closely interact with the beat police officer, know him by name and face and freely interact with him during house visits. The house visits by the beat officer facilitated the process of familiarity. Residents felt that the police is just a call away at the time of need and would definitely respond to their calls. This resulted in a conscious awareness of safety in the neighbourhood. People perceived that crime has gone down, streets have become safer and anti-social elements are scared of the police. Quotes and Examples “Where ever it (community policing) has been tried out, it has given a sense of security to the general public, particularly the women. There has been great effect on prevention of crime though statistics on crime prevention are illusive.” - SO “The crime has reduced in our locality because of alertness of the Beat officers and cooperation of the members of the association.” - A JSS member “We immediately pass on the information to Beat Officers who act on our information with promptness that has created fear among law breakers. This is the reason for reduction in crime reporting.” – A JSS member

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS “Earlier we were scared of the police and never disclosed any relevant information to the police out of fear and indifference. Things have changed with the community policing approach. We treat the police as a friend now.” - A JSS member “Besides the fact that police is just a call away created a fear among antisocials and criminals.” - A JSS member “Earlier anti-social activities, eve-teasing, and chain snatching were regularly reported from the locality. But, such activities have completely stopped after the JSP. The criminals have the fear that police patrol or the beat officers may drop in at any moment in the area.” - A JSS member “By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS, they feel closer to the police. Their sense of security has gone up. They feel secure when moving in their neighbourhood.” - a VJS Member “Our sense of security has gone up after introduction of the JSP. The Police have become approachable. Here Police has been proactive.” - A female JSS member “Beat Officers who act on our information with promptness has created fear among law breakers.” - A JSS member “There has been a perceptible decline in the commission of crimes. We generally go for night patrolling in collaboration with the local Police. This has perhaps resulted in lower reporting of thefts and burglaries.” - A JSS member “Property offences have considerably gone down because of the proactive role of the police.” - A JSS member “Besides the community police officers maintain close rapport with the residents of their Beats. This has eased the access to police as a result of which information flows from either side. People feel that police is sensitive to their requirements.” - A JSS member “I can give you an example - if you go to our area, you will find that old couples, senior citizens and women are going for morning walks early in the morning even before the day light. People in the street feel secure.” - A JSS member “We feel that the crime has gone down and our sense of security has gone up.” - A JSS member

163

164

CHAPTER FIVE

“Criminal activities, alcoholism and domestic violence are in the decline in our area.” - A JSS member “Antisocial activities and crimes are on the decline as people inform the Police of any untoward incident.” - A female JSS member “Police is now accessible and sensitive to the needs of the neighbourhood.” - A JSS member “House visits by the Beat Officers have made all the difference.” - A JSS member “The residents of our beat have access to our phone numbers and are at liberty to disturb us at any moment.” - A female CPO “The beat officers of the Police Station visit each and every house. By such visit he is in the know of things happening around in the locality.” - A JSS member “Firstly, the Beat Officers under the JSP visit the houses and closely interact with the residents.” - A JSS member “In our area the women and girls go for morning walks without any fear of the chain being snatched.” - A female JSS member “We introduced the system of ‘house visit’ by the beat officers in his/her respective beat and ensured that he/she covered all the houses in the beat within a given time frame.” - SO

The data on this score is very revealing. On the issue of sense of security and protection, the members of the JSS, both men and women, were more vocal, expressing their heartfelt satisfaction over the impact of the JSP scheme. It shall not be out of place to record it here that community men and women need protection and security and are the real recipients of the service and their perception of things is a measurable indicator to explain a successful impact. One Community Police Man and Community Police Woman scored one point each. One VJS (Vanita Jagaran Samiti) member scored two points and three Community Police Men scored two each. Three female members of the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi scored three each to a total of nine points, and four male members scored three each, amounting to a total of twenty one. One senior officer scored three only. The very high substantive score of the members of the JSS, both men and women, validates this aspect of an overall heightened sense of security.

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

165

Security for the vulnerable section Vulnerable people are those who are exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally, like the senior citizens without family support, women, children and the destitute. The state is duty bound to take care of and protect those who are vulnerable. The police, as the strong arm of the government, is legally mandated to ensure the protection of the vulnerable sections of the society. But in the scheme of traditional policing, the police reacts only after the exploitation of the vulnerability of such citizens by offenders. The vulnerable class continues to remain in a state of perpetual fear as the psychological need for security is not addressed by post-occurrence intervention by the law enforcing agency. In contrast, the Janamaithri Suraksha Project advocated pro-active engagement of the community police officer with the senior citizens, women, students, destitute, slum dwellers etc. of the area so that their sense of security is improved. The students through a programme called the Student Police Cadet are being groomed to be responsible citizens of the future. Some of the issues like domestic violence and alcoholic abuse are resolved by the beat police officers through an alternative dispute redressal mechanism. The police, in return, has earned the much needed respect, goodwill and trust of the people, making its job easier. A case study of the feelings of a senior citizen couple by the author portrays the sense of security of vulnerable people. Case Study of a Senior Citizen Couple During focus group discussions with the Community Police Officers of Cantonment Police Station, Trivandrum City, the Community Relations Officer of the Police Station, SI Tulsidharan was asked to accompany the author on a random sample survey to a household in Beat No. 1 of which ASI S. John is the designated Beat Officer, Both SI Tulsidharan and ASI John accompanied the author in the vehicle the latter was travelling in. The author stopped in front of a house after travelling for about ten minutes from the police station. On being asked the names of the occupants, the Beat officer ASI John promptly came out with their details. This was the house where a senior citizen couple,

166

CHAPTER FIVE

Dr. K. Leelamma (82 years old) and her husband were residing in. It was 1.30 in the afternoon. The author immediately chose the house for a sample survey. After getting down from the vehicle and on entering the premises, it was noticed that the front grill door was secured from inside. After a few minutes of waiting, Dr. Leelamma opened the door and welcomed the officers. She made us comfortable in her living room. Her husband joined us after a while. As told by Dr. Leelamma, her husband was exhibiting early signs of Alzheimer’s. They have one son and one daughter, both married and living away from home. Their son is working in the United States and their daughter is married to a doctor and is settled in Bangalore. Dr. Leelamma retired as a civil surgeon in the year 1988 and her husband as Joint Director, Education in the year 1985. Ever since the retirement, they have been staying at their residence in Trivandrum. Of late, her daughter has been insisting that they should not live alone at this advanced age and in stead stay with her in Bangalore, but they preferred to continue staying in their own house in Trivandrum as they do not feel insecured about their safety, thanks to John, the Beat officer of the area. She has saved John’s mobile number in her cell phone and does not hesitate to call John for any help, may it be a health problem or calling a plumber. She said, “as long as John is available, I will not be leaving my house in Trivandrum.” This truly reflects the level of trust and sense of security the Janamaithri scheme has generated in the minds of senior citizens.

Box 5.5 : Case Study Quotes and Examples “In addition the Police is held with high esteem among the public for its pro-poor schemes for the destitute, women and juvenile delinquents.” - A JSS member “…… with the introduction of Student Police Cadet scheme and with the help of the Police we will create good citizenry in future which will help reduce the crime in the long run.” - A JSS member “In addition to the Janamaithri, the Kerala Police has taken up few more schemes like student police cadet, senior citizen and women related activities.” - A JSS member “During house visit the Police have sorted out the problem of senior citizens who are not looked after by their family members.” - A JSS member

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS “Police helps involving us in its charitable activities like distribution of books to the poor students, arranging shelter for the homeless, helping senior and elderly citizens etc.” - A JSS member “The police has taken up a number of welfare schemes including helping the destitute and sick people. The police now shares the happiness, sorrow and distress of the people.” - A JSS member “The Beat Officer in my locality resolved domestic problems of couple of families where the husbands were abusing and harassing of the wives after consumption of alcohol.” - A female JSS member “There are about 50 senior citizens residing under the police station limit. These senior citizens live without any support from the younger members of the family. Therefore, we attach more importance to these households and increase the frequency of the visits.” - A CPO “In addition to house visit we have taken up special programmes for senior citizens, women, destitute and poor people. These special schemes have earned lot of goodwill to the Police organization.” - A woman CRO “I have a list of senior citizens without family or dependent members to look after them.” - A CPO “Helping juvenile delinquents, destitute women and charity are the main activities of VJS. Sometimes they invite professional counsellors to offer counsel to estranged couples.” - A VJS member “The exclusive programs for the senior citizens without any close family members to take care have earned the police a special place in the hearts of the residents.” - A JSS member “In other instances the children of senior citizens, who stay abroad have come to express their gratitude to Beat Officers for the house visits, thereby enhancing the sense of security to their aged parents.” - A senior police officer “We have maintained a senior citizens’ directory wherein the name, address and contact details of the senior citizens are available.” - A CPO “The Student Police Cadet initiative is aimed at fostering democratic values among the young students. The young citizens, here the students, must learn to respect the law.” - SO

167

168

CHAPTER FIVE

Community policing demands helping those with special needs. The police, as the strong arm of the government, is accountable to ensure the protection of the vulnerable sections of society who are exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally, like the senior citizens including those without family support, women, children and the destitute. The impact on this aspect is quite visible and substantive. The members of the JSS, both men and women, were more vocal, expressing their heartfelt satisfaction over the impact of the JSP scheme. The very high substantive score of members of JSS (five) and the high scores of members of VSJ validates the field findings of a better sense of security amongst vulnerable sections of the society. Police Mediation in Availing Basic Services A beat police officer, by close interaction with residents of his Beat, not only earns their good will and trust but is perceived as the visible representative of the state in addition to the common adage of being the strong arm. Residents of the Beat during their interaction bring various non-police related issues to the notice of the Beat Officer. These include a lack of civic amenities like non-availability of street lights in the locality, irregular supply of drinking water and problems of solid waste management. The Beat officer intervenes in such instances as they believe that a lack of basic civic amenities and instances of dumping waste in a locality has the potential to lead to a law and order situation. Besides, they want to win the goodwill and trust of the residents they serve, thereby developing a symbiotic relationship with the residents. Quotes and Examples “Not only instances of crime were brought to our notice, but also instances of lack of civic amenities. At appropriate instances we bring such problems to the notice of the concerned department.” - A female CPO “We have faced a problem recently with regard to dumping of waste of the city near their locality. This was creating unhygienic atmosphere in the area. In several instances they protested and hesitated over the matter but to no avail. However, after the intervention of the beat officer the matter has been resolved temporarily.” - A JSS member “During introduction with members of the Residents’ Association a number of problems of other departments are also brought to our notice. For example, replacement of street light, drinking water supply etc. Sometimes we take

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

169

up the matter with the concerned department and get the job done. By doing such activities, we also gain goodwill of the public.” - A woman CRO

Thus, community policing adds a vital, proactive element to the traditional reactive role of the police, resulting in a full-spectrum policing service. Attending to citizen’s needs and aiding in the provision of basic services with a humanitarian face and social-work approach paid greater dividends to the scheme of community policing in Kerala and increased overall acceptance of the police by the public. JSP Scheme in Kerala reasonably established that a balance must be struck between the competing demands of emergency calls and rapid response situations and the increased focus on community-based, proactive policing. Very high score of community police officers (two) and of one JSS member bears testimony to this aspect as the process of seeking police intervention in cases of lack of civic amenities is still evolving. Empowerment of Constabulary Empowerment is a management practice of sharing information, rewards, and power with employees so that they can take initiative and make decisions to solve problems and improve service and performance. Empowerment is based on the idea that giving employees skills, resources, authority, opportunity, motivation as well holding them responsible and accountable for the outcomes of their actions will contribute to their competence and satisfaction. The Beat Officers under Janamaithri scheme are mostly from the ranks of Constable and Head Constable. They comprise the bottom rung of the police hierarchy, suffer from low motivation, lack initiative and have never been part of the decision making process. Janamaithri provided the opportunity to these Beat Officers of gaining much needed visibility, recognition, respect and self-esteem, and in the process empowered the constabulary. The police departments, with their rigid militaristic structure and hierarchy, place a premium on compliance and hardly encourage initiative and self-management. Participatory management with just an improvement in upward and downward communication, by the introduction of a linking pin structure in the department, would lead to greater organisational commitment and job satisfaction among the lower level police officers (Choudhury). The community police officers in Kerala are the front-line formation in the police hierarchy. The Janamaithri project gave them opportunities to be more visible, part of the decision making process and have their voice heard in the organisation - a slow but steady process of empowerment.

170

CHAPTER FIVE

Quotes and Examples “My workload has increased but I am happy for the respect I command from the public now.” - A CPO “I command a lot of respect in my area as an Asst Beat Officer which I never experienced before.” - A female CPO “I feel good about my job as a community police officer. People respect me in my new role.” - A CPO “People hold us in high esteem. We have a sense of satisfaction having been in this department.” - A female CPO “As regards police sub-culture, the beat officers, who are mostly from the ranks of constable and head constable, have developed self-esteem and pride in their jobs.” - A senior police officer “The scheme has empowered the constabulary and would benefit the organisational culture in the long run.” - SO “Having enjoyed the public trust and appreciation, the self-esteem of the Beat Officers has also enhanced to the advantage of the organisation.” - SO “I have a lot of public contacts. I get the respect of the public and enjoy my job.” - A CRO “The community police officers, mostly in the rank of constable and head constable, enjoy the public confidence and esteem.” - SO

Data on this score is not only revealing but also encouraging. As is the practice today in Kerala, and in fact the world over, a Police Constable is a very important component of the Police service and is the real cutting edge implementer of CP initiatives. Community police officers, both men (five of them) and women (one of them), during FGD exhibited greater enthusiasm, high motivation and narrated exemplary courageous action. Senior officers (three of them), during discussions, also went on to admit that the success of CP initiatives can be attributed the sincere efforts of the constabulary. This recognition has led to improved initiative, morale, selfbelief, motivation, confidence, knowledge, skills and behaviour with the public amongst the constabulary. The very high score of community police officers (frontline officers in police organisation) validates the process of empowerment after the introduction of Janamaithri project.

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

171

Institutionalisation Institutionalisation is a process which translates an organisation’s mission, policies, vision and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its officers and employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the organisation’s culture and structure. Janamaithri Suraksha Project culminated as a flagship community policing scheme of Kerala Police after almost a decade of committed efforts of the police leadership. Starting from enlisting political consensus for the scheme to the publication of Government Orders and finally making legal provisions in the new Kerala Police Act (see Appendix-G), the process of institutionalisation has been an ongoing process. Uniform and centralised training programmes for the Beat Officers, appointment of a state level Nodal Officer, budgetary provisions, publication of standard operating procedures in the shape of Police Circular Orders and increase in the sanctioned strength of the staff in Janamaithri police stations are some of the processes to institutionalise the scheme in the State. Quotes and Examples “Yes, we have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in form of Government Orders by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 and 65).” - SO “We have redefined the functions of the police in the Kerala Police Act, making them more in sync with the objectives of the community policing, e.g., ‘to instill a sense of security among people in general’, ‘to provide all reasonable help to persons affected by natural or man-made disaster, calamity or accident.” - SO “For the last five financial years we have been receiving budgetary allocation for JSP under Plan fund. As the community policing has been legally mandated as per the provision of the Kerala Police Act, the budgetary allocation would be part of police budget under non-plan scheme.” - SO “Government have increased the sanctioned strength of each (Janamaithri) police station by five.” - SO “At the end of the meeting there was consensus that such a scheme should be implemented in the State under the banner Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP).” - SO

172

CHAPTER FIVE

“However, with the institutional support and constant monitoring by the State Level Nodal Officer and the availability of government fund under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, whoever be the successor has to continue with the scheme.” - SO “On the recommendation of the DGP, the State Government notified me as the State Level Nodal Officer for the (JSP) Janamaithri Suraksha Project, since 2007. Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years.” - SO “Budgetary provisions for Janamaithri Suraksha Project, Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralised training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project.” - SO “Now sanction of additional post have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1(one) female police officers.” - SO

The aforesaid data and scoring results in this study go on to vouchsafe that supportive structural changes are essential to institutionalising behavioural change. Substantive statements given by the senior officers revealed the care and strategies adopted towards the institutionalisation of the community policing scheme in the state of Kerala. All seven statements were captured from the senior officers, who score twenty one on the three point scale. Very high substantive score of senior police officers (seven in number) are indicative of the roles played by them as policy entrepreneurs in shaping the process of institutionalisation of the policy.

Community Policing: Theories and Praxis As the positive outcome of the study, a schematic representation of the categorisation variables, duly triangulated through the theories and praxis, is presented below to facilitate the construction of a suitable model for nationwide implementation. The categorisation variables in each phase are shown against the relevant theories and praxis. The theories and praxis are drawn from the existing literature studies and practices, both in the discipline of public policy and community policing. The categorisation variables and policy implications are derived from the field study of community policing practice, the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, of Kerala.

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

173

Sl

Categorisation

Theories

Policy Praxis

1

Political Will

Kingdon Schema, Policy entrepreneurship (Ayyar 2009)

Favourable political stream. Police leadership to sell the idea to the political executives, take both ruling and opposition political dispensations into confidence

2

Misconceptions in the minds of public

Policy entrepreneurship (Ayyar 2009)

Sustained campaign, seminars, workshops, engagement with public in various forum

3

Predecessorsuccessor syndrome

Issue of the policy guidelines in shape of Government Orders, Police Circular Orders, Legislations, Budgetary allocation, Central review and monitoring by a Nodal Officer

4

Developing TrustCommunity empowerment

5

Engaging Stakeholders

Alison’s Model,1971 Organisational Process Model and Government Politics model (Model I & II), Elmore’s Model II, III, IV Police Accountability (NPC 1981); Problem Oriented Policing (Goldstein 1979); Broken window hypothesis (Wilson and Kelling 1982); Community Policing (Bayley 1994); Community Policing (Trozanowicz 1994) Policy Entrepreneurship (Ayyar 2009)

Police Boards, State Security Commissions, Police Complaint Authorities, Community oriented Policing Strategies

Engaging Political leadership, Civil Society, Media, Opinion Makers through sustained efforts to make the idea acceptable

174

CHAPTER FIVE

Sl

Categorisation

Theories

Policy Praxis

6

Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Needs

Pilot projects, Scaling up on successful implementation of pilot, well designed Training & orientation programme for the manpower

7

Publicity and Propaganda

Lindblom’s Incrementalism (1959), Elmore’s Model, Palmiotto and Trojanowicz’s Community police training Policy entrepreneurship and Media Management

Professional Public Relation officer, well- coordinated campaign

Table 5.1 : Pre-implementation Phase: Theoretical Triangulation Sl No 1

Categorisation

Theories

Policy Praxis

Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures

Publication of Police Circular Orders, Government Orders, Legislations

2

From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation

Alison and Elmore’s Models, Policy Entrepreneurship (Ayyar 2009), Policy evolution during implementation Policy entrepreneurship and Lindblom’s Incrementalism

3

Hand-holding

Organisational Theory, Motivational Theory

4

Service Delivery Strategies

Alison and Elmore Models

5

Resource Augmentation

6

Monitoring and Controlling

Policy Entrepreneurship, Alison’s Models Modern Management Concepts

7

Political Acceptance

Kingdon’s schema, Policy entrepreneurship

Successful marketing of the positive impact to the political leadership and the public Guidance, Mentoring, Aid and Support Integrating organisational activities and resources to meet the objective Planning resource augmentation for scaling up State level Nodal Officer, Feedback mechanism, Corrective Action Scheme to be apolitical, engaging all political parties in decision making

Table 5.2 : Implementation Phase - Theoretical Triangulation

STUDY OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

175

Sl No 1

Categorisation

Theories

Policy Praxis

Bridging the gap between police and public

Community Oriented Policing initiatives

2

Overall heightened sense of security

3

Sense security for vulnerable section

4

Police mediation in availing basic services

5

Empowerment of Constabulary

6

Institutionalisation

Problem Oriented Policing (Goldstein 1990) Broken window hypothesis (Wilson and Kelling 1982), Community Policing (Bayley 1994), Community Policing (Trozanowicz 1972), Theory of innovation (Morabito), Social Resource Theory (Wong) Community oriented policing, Trozanowicz, Bayley, Goldstein’s theories Community oriented policing, Trozanowicz, Bayley, Goldstein’s theories Community oriented policing, Trozanowicz, Bayley, Goldstein’s theories Organisational theory, Megadigm Shift (Choudhury 2009) Alison and Elmore’s Models, concepts of Modern Management

Beat Police System

Focus on women, senior citizens, juveniles Involving other public service providers in the scheme Decentralisation, premium on initiatives, motivation, rewards Legislation, Government Orders, Budget, Nodal officer, training, monitoring and feedback mechanism

Table 5.3 : Impact Phase - Theoretical Triangulation On further refinement and assimilation of the models, a Context-ProcessOutcome Matrix has been conceptualised by us as a critical outcome of this study and has been dealt with in the next chapter.

176

CHAPTER SIX

CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Community policing as an alternative policing strategy revolves around the principle of pro-active policing through people friendly policing practices, community participation and problem solving leading to crime prevention, maintenance of order and improvement in the overall quality of life in their neighbourhood. Community policing allows the law enforcement agency to get back to the principles upon which it was founded, to integrate itself into the fabric of the community so that the people and the police collaborate even before a serious problem arises. Here, the police acts as a catalyst in the social engineering experiment. To put it succinctly, community policing is a useful, holistic and proactive concept and a tool to transform the police’s image, strengthen the force and create attitudinal changes both within the force and amongst the public. In its strategic dimension, it contributes to the individual, the state and national health and as such, reduces social pathology. Community policing provides decentralised, personalised police service to the community. It recognises that the police cannot impose order on the community from the outside, but that people must be encouraged to think of the police as a resource that they can use to help solve contemporary community concerns. It is not a tactic to be applied and then abandoned, but a new philosophy and organisational strategy that provides the flexibility to meet local needs and priorities as they change over time. To implement true community policing, police departments create and develop a new breed of line officer who acts as a direct link between the police and the people of the community. The community policing officer’s broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with the law-abiding people in the community so that together, they can explore creative new solutions to local concerns, with private citizens serving as supporters and volunteers. As the community’s ombudsman, the community policing officer also acts as a link to other public and private agencies that can help in a given situation. The benefits of community policing are broken down into three areas for the sake of brevity. These are Community-specific benefits, Policespecific benefits and Shared benefits. To be more specific, community-

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

177

specific benefits include identification of and responding to community concerns, ownership of local problems, improved local physical and social environment and reduced fear of crime. Police-specific benefits include improved police-community relationship, more positive attitudes towards the police, the development of a community-wide perception of police “legitimacy” and most importantly, an increase in officer satisfaction with their work. The international and national best practices exhibit certain shared benefits such as a decreased potential for police-citizen conflict, a reduction in crime rates and a better flow of information between the police and the community. Community policing is the need of the day and police forces in democracies around the world are realising its utility and implementing community policing initiatives in various forms. As an innovation in police organisation and philosophy, community policing has assumed centre stage. From United States to Britain, Brazil to South Africa, Singapore to Japan, countries adopt various forms of community policing with the core philosophy remaining universal. India inherited a colonial police force at the time of independence, whose mission and vision statement were drafted by its colonial rulers in the nineteenth century. The provisions of the old Police Act of 1861 are rendered redundant and archaic in a constitutional democracy where the authority of the people is supreme. However, despite the absence of any provision in the Act, the State and, in many instances, the police leadership have embarked upon proactive community-oriented policing initiatives, making the police sensitive to the needs of the community. In the absence of any institutional or legal framework however, many brilliant initiatives have failed to stand the test of time. The community policing initiatives put in place by most of the State and Union Territory governments were “informal policy processes” that should have been backed by “due process” policy. By “due process”, what is meant is that community policing practices should have been a part of the police mission statement duly recognised by the Act and laws governing police organisations. Of late, states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan have encoded the vision of community oriented policing in their newly legislated state Police Acts. Kerala is one state that has launched its community policing scheme, “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, with the requisite legal and institutional framework so that the initiatives survive the executive and political leadership as a public policy. The “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, the flagship community policing scheme of the Kerala Police, was conceptualised in the year 2005, when the UDF government was in power and launched in the year 2008 by the rival

178

CHAPTER SIX

LDF government, subsequently being consolidated under the patronage of the incumbent UDF government. It has weathered the various “political streams”, survived the “successor-predecessor syndrome” and has gained public acceptance. This study examined the benefits accrued to the police organisation, to the community and the shared benefits after studying the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, the overarching community policing programme of the Kerala Police and the policy processes it encountered during the pre-implementation, implementation and consolidation phases. The rationales for the present study are: i. Looking at the varieties of theories available on the subject, it appears that not a single theory can explain the diversity and complexity of the emergence of CP, its strategy, implementation and impact in a domestic context. There is a need for an integrated approach to contextualise theories and praxis in India and to have a national overarching model for policy implementation. ii. Large numbers of studies have jumped to the evaluation of impact of CP practices without a detailed examination of the dynamics of their emergence and the initial challenges faced as well as the strategic issues encountered at each stage of its accomplishment. Initiatives by police executives are seen, in several instances, to suffer from the problems of a lack of political will and the successorpredecessor syndrome. A need thus arises to go into the details from the pre-implementation dynamics to the impact phase via its very implementation. iii. The studies are mostly of a descriptive nature or are in the form of evaluation exercises, and reliance has been placed on official statistics or case studies of success stories. Qualitative research employing Focus Group Discussions, In-depth Interviews, observations, case studies and triangulation methodology (cross examination of theory with facts and theories in policy context) has been adopted in the present piece of research with a view to understand behaviour, beliefs, opinions and emotions from the perspective of the study participants and understand the various processes such as how policy makers make decisions or negotiate obstacles. iv. The study intends to explore the dynamics of policy processes in the Janamaithri scheme of Kerala and come out with a contextprocess-outcome framework for the guidance of policy makers and implementers.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

179

Accordingly the present study sets off with the following objectives a) To make a detailed state of the art review of literature under the theoretical, methodological and thematic heads and to take stock of national and international best practices on Community Policing; b) To delve deep into legal and institutional frameworks necessary to support and sustain the community policing strategies/initiatives; c) To study the nature of the pre-conditions/pre-requisites to the implementation of the community policing strategies in a geographical unit like a district; d) To examine various phases of development of practices of community policing in the state of Kerala, the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project”, and the implications thereof as benefits to the police organisation and the community; and e) To analyse the macro impact of this micro study from the policy and praxis perspective and to come out with a set of recommendations to serve as guidelines for the policy entrepreneurs. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to summarise the discussions and to put forth the findings and recommendations. The present study has been articulated in six chapters including this and the last one. The first chapter explains community policing and various theories on the subject. The second chapter examines public policy and relevant theories associated with it from the perspective of community policing. The third chapter deals with global community policing initiatives. The fourth chapter deals with the research context and the framework of the field study in an Indian state. An analysis and interpretation of the results have been presented in the fifth chapter. The data analysis aimed at developing a theory or model by developing and linking categories, otherwise known as conceptualisation, is the outcome of the research. The model approach for qualitative data analysis has been adopted following Hutter-Hennink’s Qualitative Research Pyramid (Figure - 4.5). After the collection of data, the task of analyzing it was undertaken. At this stage, the raw data was condensed into the manageable groups by coding them into necessary categories. The journey of JSP as a policy process has been divided into three stages and the categories or the parameters were accordingly consolidated under three major heads: pre-implementation dynamics, implementation phase and the impact phase. The policy parameters or categories under the different phases of CP intervention, after the deductive and inductive elements of analysis, have been conceptualised.

180

CHAPTER SIX

Pre-implementation Dynamics and Implementation Phase have seven parameters each and the Impact Phase consists of six parameters. i. Pre-implementation Dynamics a) Political will b) Misconceptions in Public mind c) Predecessor-successor syndrome d) Developing Trust-Community empowerment e) Engaging stake holders f) Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Needs g) Publicity and propaganda ii. Implementation Phase a) Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures-POs and GOs b) From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation c) Hand-holding d) Standardisation of Service Delivery Strategy e) Resource Augmentation f) Monitoring, Control and Feedback g) Political Acceptance iii. Impact Phase a) Decentralisation-partnership b) Overall Heightened Sense of Security c) Security for the vulnerable sections d) Police mediation in availing basic services e) Empowerment of constabulary f) Institutionalisation A consolidated Focus Group Discussion (FGD)/ In-depth Interview (IDI) table has been devoted to each phase of analysis with its corresponding parameters. In-depth interviews taken from six senior police officers have been carefully arranged as part of the focus group for the convenience of data analysis. Scores were assigned to each FG on the basis of the veracity of points made, number of examples and quotable quotes captured from the transcript of recorded statements, the intensity of participation and degree of knowledge on the issue. Very high participation was given three, high as two, average as one and poor participation was given zero. Key Points under each category have been culled from the operationalisation of the concepts as well as the interpretation of the transcripts.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

181

Triangulation of Theories and Praxis The interpretation of data has been made keeping in mind the theories and praxis that have been validated during the field study. The parameters under each category, pre-implementation, implementation and impact, were evaluated on the basis of the key words captured in the transcripts of the respondent group.

Pre-implementation Dynamics a) Political Will A shorthand definition of political will is the commitment of actors to undertake actions to achieve a set of objectives and to sustain the costs of those actions over time. It will be interesting to trace out the long preparatory journey of “Janamaithri Surashka Project” (JSP) before it was approved as a major public policy. The community policing scheme waited for three long years from 2005 to 2008 before becoming an avowed policy of the government. The “window of opportunity” (Kingdon 1995) opened in the year 2008 when the policy entrepreneurs (in this case, the police leadership) played a crucial role in the intervening period to steer all the three streams - the problems, solutions and politics - through the “policy window” (Ayyar 2009). b) Misconceptions in Public Mind Misconceptions in the public mind means the lenses through which the general populace over-read or under-read the police attitude and activities as being opposed to their interests. The more the misconceptions in the public mind about the police, the more is the gap between the police and the public. Tackling the mindsets of the police as well as the public is one of the major tasks in the pre-implementation phase. In the year 2000, the Kerala Police drafted a similar scheme and trained its officers. However, it was opposed to the misconceived idea that the community will share the burden of police work. It was misinterpreted that the police are going to introduce a system of policing with the help of the community by which policing will be done by the community itself so the programme could not take off. A sustained campaign by the Kerala Police to allay the misconceptions in the minds of the public and to sell the idea to the public that they become partners with the police to prevent crime, maintain order in the neighbourhood ultimately paid dividends with the success of Janamaithri.

182

CHAPTER SIX

c) Predecessor-Successor Syndrome The Predecessor/Successor Syndrome was a major obstacle at the pre take off stage of the CP Initiatives. When an incumbent joins a new post and succeeds his predecessor, he shows a general tendency to not follow the legacy of his predecessor and wishes to do something new. In the process, a brilliant initiative of the predecessor is given a premature obituary. However, with institutional arrangements in place, a programme or initiative continues uninterrupted, irrespective of the incumbents. Here, the system takes care of personal aberrations. d) Developing Trust - Community Empowerment Building and maintaining community trust is the cornerstone of successful policing and ethical law enforcement (Bayley 2005). The building and maintenance of trust takes a great deal of continuous effort. Law enforcement agencies can be accountable to their citizens by engaging them in any number of trust-building initiatives. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police existence, actions, behaviour, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect (see Peelian consensual system). Community Policing is a way to remind everyone that policing works best as a mutual partnership to help make the area a safe and attractive place to live and work in (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux 1994). Collaborative partnerships should be encouraged between the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organisations they serve to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in the police (COP, Department of Justice, USA). The police must take specific steps to increase the capacity of communities to exert informal social control (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Janamaithri Suraksha Project introduces a new “level” between the public authority and scattered individual citizens, and this notably includes district or neighbourhood consultation where dialogue or participation is organised and accountability is a natural consequence. Consequently, a new source of re-quests to the police and of bringing the police into action gets created. So far, the police were politically responsible to the government/authorities and responsible to the individuals from an operational point of view. Community policing realigns this traditional sharing of power over the police agencies and establishes a new relationship in the social contract between the police and the society. In the process, the community gains a say in decision making and deciding the manner of policing it would prefer. One of the women empowerment programmes under the overarching JSP models is Vanitha Jagaran Samithi, literally translated to mean women empowerment group. The introduction of Reception Desk at the Janamaithri

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

183

police station and CCTV in the lock-up rooms was intended to reduce the trust deficit between the police and the public, and is a good example of innovative measure initiated by the police leadership. e) Engaging Stake Holders Engaging stake holders is an invitation to the people to contribute their efforts to day-to-day policing in partnership with the police. This is a process of restructuring of policing priorities with due consultation, coordination and cooperation with the community at large, and acting in consonance with public expectations. Political leadership, members of the public, the media, non-profit organisations, social workers, academics, and bureaucrats were engaged during the pre-implementation phase to sell the concept. “The government of Kerala was very particular about a dialogue and consultation with each and every section of the society, before finalising on what to do”, says Mrs B. Sandhya, IPS, the State Level Nodal Officer for community policing. f) Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Planning, coordination, execution and feedback are the different stages of implementation of this scheme. When the overarching community policing scheme, “Janamaithri”, was sought to be implemented in the state of Kerala, a conscious and deliberate decision was taken to start the programme in 20 pilot police stations of the state and to scale it up later (Lindblom 1959). Community policing is a man power intensive scheme. The shortage of man power was addressed in due course by creating extra posts for Janamaithri police stations. From 20 pilot police stations, the programme has been extended to nearly 248 police stations at present within a span of four years. The strength of each Janamathri police station was increased by five to cope with the work load. Community policing training is different from traditional training. It involves learning to think critically, to solve problems, to share responsibilities with citizens and is not fostered by authoritarian or noninteractive training techniques. A department that plans to undertake the implementation of community policing will have to shift police training from the current model of mastery over technical skills and obedience to a focus on empowerment (Trojanowicz and Bucqeroux 1994). The training curriculum for the police officers should include familiarity with the community they are to serve, techniques of crime prevention and conflict resolution, police philosophy and culture, technique to handle physical and mental stress, self-awareness, ethics and the development of human values (Palmiotto et al. 2000; Choudhury 2009). The training syllabus for JSP was simplistic, yet a remarkable attempt on the part of police leadership to have recognised the difference.

184

CHAPTER SIX

g) Publicity and Propaganda Publicity and propaganda involve deliberate and guided campaigns to induce masses to accept and act on given idea. The success attained by CP initiatives today is mainly due to adequate publicity and due propaganda. The publicity was made more potent by incorporating opposing arguments in a way that tended to discredit them. Such strategy really worked because the stake holders were given the impression that the ultimate benefit shall go to them and them only. Care was taken against deliberate lies, double talk, omission and distortion of facts, exaggeration and prejudiced appeals by certain community members and a section of unwilling police personnel. The police authorities took all the stakeholders on board, held seminars and workshops to disseminate the concept and allay the disinformation and apprehensions. Publication of success stories in the media, radio dramas, street plays and even on the websites of the state police and many district police organisations as well as of a leading newspaper of the state helped create a favourable image in the public. The logo of the JSP gave it an identity of its own.

Implementation Phase a) Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures Standard Operating Procedures are the institutionalised implementable sets of policy guidelines published in the form of Police Orders issued by the DGP of the State or by the Administrative Department of the Government, e.g., Home Department in this case with its avowed objectives for uniform application by political executives, bureaucracy and other stakeholders, irrespective of the incumbent in position to implement. In Kerala, the guidelines for implementation of the community policing scheme, the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, were issued and consolidated for over two years, starting with G.O. No 3161/Home dated 23-11-2007, which briefly spells out the introduction of Community Policing Scheme in the State and the conduct of workshops, seminars, distribution of publicity materials and training of police personnel. Subsequently, the Government published elaborate guidelines in GO No107/2008/Home dated 21-06-2008. The DGP, Kerala issued Circular No 34/2009 dated 20-08-2009 and 35/2009 dated 21-08-2009, enjoining the detailed guidelines of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, roles and responsibilities of the Community Police Officers and that of Janamathri Suraksha Samithis. All these government orders and circulars helped consolidate the implementation of the scheme.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

185

b) From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation Pilot implementation is one of the key strategies to evaluate the efficacy of any new project. Pilot projects make evaluation and analysis easier and help further the development of a concept. In Kerala, there are twenty police districts, but the police leadership suggested introducing Janamaithri Surashka Projects in fourteen police districts initially, and limiting the scheme to twenty police stations. It was extended to 21 more Police Stations in 2009. Subsequently, the scheme was introduced in 107 police stations in the state, bringing the total number of police stations covered under the Janamaithri scheme to 148. Having assessed the popularity and acceptance of the scheme by the public, the Kerala government further extended the scheme to 100 more police stations in 2012. The idea was to market the positive effects of the Scheme among the public and generate demands from the people of the neighbouring Police Stations through their representatives for the introduction of the scheme in their respective police stations. In the process, the police leadership was able to bargain with the government for more resources for effective implementation of the scheme in new areas. Here, the praxis correlates to the concept of “incrementalism” (Lindblom 1959). c) Hand-holding Hand holding is an expression which refers to providing someone with guidance, assistance, encouragement or aid and support to lessen anxiety. In the context of the implementation of a new, government sponsored scheme like the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the top police leadership is expected to constantly guide, aid, support and patronise the scheme at the initial phase of implementation to overcome the teething problems and make way for wider acceptance by the public. In Kerala, the senior police officers passionately played this role till the Project received wider political and public acceptance with scaling up from pilot to state-wide implementation. Starting from the selection of the beat police officers, and training, monitoring and evaluating them, the State Level Nodal Officer played the role of a mentor, constantly guiding and motivating the front line officers in the department (concepts of Organisational Behaviour theories and Motivational theories). d) Service Delivery Strategies and Standardisation of Service Delivery Service delivery is the implementation of those services and making sure that they reach those people and places they are intended to. Strategy is all about integrating organisational activities and utilising and allocating the scarce resources within the organisational environment so as to meet the present objectives. Standardisation of the service delivery involves

186

CHAPTER SIX

developing a prototype model that fits into all areas after addressing the concerns of all stake-holders. The implementation strategy of Janamaithri project is based on a threetier structure: the beat police, the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi and the District Advisory Committee. The Beat Police constituted the fulcrum on which the system is required to revolve. The “house visit” by the beat police officer offered personalised police service. The police forged a partnership with the public to address crime prevention measures, develop solutions to other neighbourhood problems and increase the trust coefficient (Bayley, Trozanowicz, Skogan, Goldstein). As regards the policy processes, the theories of decision making and implementation in the government (Allison, Elmore) met with the praxis. e) Resource Augmentation Policing is always fraught with acute resource crunches like manpower and finances. Implementation of a manpower intensive scheme like Janamaithri must have posed serious challenges to the police leadership on how to cope with such constraints. Government support to augment the resources is often conditional upon the successful implementation of a scheme like Janamaithri. The police leadership in Kerala succeeded in motivating its officers and men to overcome such resource constraints at the initial stage of implementation of Janamaithri with the hope that once accepted by the people and the political leadership, it would have the leverage to press for the creation of additional manpower and provision of adequate funds. In fact, it happened during the subsequent phase when the scheme was extended to other police stations of the State. Extra manpower for each Janamaithri police station was created and budgetary provisions were made for the scheme by the government. The police leadership, bureaucrats, government departments and the department Minister bargained with each other in the decision making process to arrive at a “satisficing” allocation of resources (Allison). f) Monitoring & Controlling During the process of implementation of the Janamathri Project, the core group headed by the State Nodal Officer, a senior police officer in the rank of IGP, was constantly monitoring the project. This included laying down criteria for the selection of community police officers, training modules, conducting seminars and workshops with the stake-holders, allocating the requisite time to be spent for house visits and setting out the dos and don’ts for community police officers. In appropriate instances, corrective actions were taken to address the issues and concerns that emerged in the course of implementation.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

187

g) Political Acceptance In a parliamentary democracy like India, the success of a new public policy is largely incumbent on the political will and consensus. A policy that gets the seal of approval of the opposition political parties is likely to survive the successor-predecessor syndrome. A proposal initiated by the executives should ideally have been approved not only by the government of the day but should have the tacit support of the opposition political parties. In Kerala, the police leadership had the acumen and foresight to gauge these political dynamics of policy making. It took all the stake holders on board before launching Janamaithri, and this included the opposition political parties. Political acceptance of the scheme by all political parties including the ruling dispensation allowed the scheme to survive the change of government thrice during the evolution and implementation phase of Janamaithri.

Impact Phase a) Bridging the Gap between Police and Public The system of “house visit” made the police service personalised, and helped transform the police from an anonymous and aloof establishment into a humane organisation. The Beat police officers circulated their contact number with the residents they were required to serve. The people felt that the police is just a call’s away. The Cochin city police introduced a number of innovative schemes in collaboration with Merchants’ Association, private security guards, and the student population. Extortion was on decline, suspicious activities in the Shopping Malls and in the business districts were reported and private traffic wardens supplemented the resources of the police in checking minor traffic offences. The sense of security of the general public increased and the gap between public and police narrowed down (Trozanowicz, Bayley, Peel). b) Overall Heightened Sense of Security With the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the residents got an opportunity to closely interact with the beat police officer, know him by name and face and freely interact with him during house visits. The house visits by the beat officer facilitated the process of familiarity. Residents felt that the police was just a call’s away at the time of need and would definitely respond to their calls. This resulted in a conscious awareness of safety in the neighbourhood. People perceived that the crime has gone down, although statistics prove otherwise, and that the streets have become safer, with antisocial elements being scared of the police.

188

CHAPTER SIX

c) Security for the vulnerable section The Janamaithri Suraksha Project advocated pro-active engagement of the community police officer with the senior citizens, women, students, the destitute and slum dwellers of the area so that their sense of security is improved. The students, through a programme called the Student Police Cadet, are being groomed to be responsible citizens of the future. Some of the issues like domestic violence and alcoholic abuses are being resolved by the beat police officers through an alternative dispute redressal mechanism. The police, in return, have earned the much needed respect, good will and trust of the people, making its job easier. d) Police mediation in availing basic services A beat police officer, through close interaction with the residents of his Beat, not only earns their goodwill and trust but is also perceived as the visible representative of the state in addition to the common adage of being the strong arm. Residents of the Beat, during their interaction, bring various non-police related issues to the notice of the Beat Officer, and these may include the lack of civic amenities such as non-availability of street lights in the locality, irregular supply of drinking water, problems of solid waste management etc. The Beat officer intervenes in such instances as he believes that a lack of the basic civic amenities and dumping of waste in a locality has the potential to lead to a law and order situation. Besides, the officer wants to win the goodwill and trust of the residents he serves, thereby developing a symbiotic relationship with the residents. e) Empowerment of constabulary The Beat Officers under the Janamaithri scheme are mostly from the ranks of Constable and Head Constable. They comprise the bottom of the police hierarchy, suffer from low motivation, lack initiatives and have never been part of the decision making process. Janamaithri provided the opportunity to these Beat Officers to gain far more visibility, recognition, respect and self-esteem and in the process empowered the constabulary. By introduction of the linking pin structure in the department, greater organisational commitment and job satisfaction among the lower level police officers was ensured (Choudhury). f) Institutionalisation Janamaithri Suraksha Project was regarded as a flagship community policing scheme of Kerala Police after almost a decade of committed efforts of the police leadership. Starting from enlisting political consensus for the scheme to the publication of Government Orders and finally making legal provisions in the new Kerala Police Act, the process of institutionalisation has been an ongoing process. Uniform and centralised training programmes

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

189

for the Beat Officers, appointment of a state level Nodal Officer, budgetary provisions, publication of standard operating procedure in the shape of Police Circular Orders and increase in the sanctioned strength of the staff in Janamaithri police stations are some of the processes undertaken to institutionalise the scheme in the State.

Policy Context-Process-Outcome Matrix After having articulated the key findings in the preceding section, a Model has been conceptualised by triangulating the theories and praxis and organising them in a Context-Process-Outcome framework in respect of pre-implementation, implementation and impact phases to serve as guidelines for both the policy makers and implementers in their efforts to introduce community policing as a public policy. In the next page, Figure 5.1 titled “Community Policing Policy: Context Process and Outcome Matrix” explains the dynamics. Context includes the circumstances in which an event occurs. The purpose of contextual evaluation is to develop an understanding of the nuances of policy processes and to appreciate how a policy could be replicated in other settings. Processes are a series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result. Process evaluation addresses a broad spectrum of implementation activities. An outcome is the result of pay off from the course of action the policy mandates. The outcomes may be short, medium and long term. In the context-process-outcome matrix, the outcome column articulates all such possibilities. For example, publicity and propaganda through a well co-ordinated campaign strategy resulted in the quick propagation of the objectives of the Janamaithri scheme, a short or medium term outcome whereas integrating community policing strategies into organisational structure and culture would mark a paradigm shift in the functional characteristics of the police, and constitute a long term outcome. Some of the short and medium term outcomes would pave the way for long term ones, like community empowerment leading to police accountability in the long term.

Pre-implementation Dynamics “A policy is as good as its implementation”. In the same logic, it is deduced from the research that the pre-implementation dynamics are as

190

CHAPTER SIX

critical as the successful implementation of a policy. An appreciation of pre-implementation dynamics helps the policy entrepreneur to have clarity on the “policy environment”; that is, the operating environment within an organisation and the external environment in which the organisation is embedded. The elements of the environment are “actors” (organisations, cabinet, political executives, stake-holders, officials), structural and institutional factors, and the “ruling ideas” which condition policy thinking. In Kerala, the policy processes of community policing were initiated with the recommendations of the Kerala Police Performance and Accountability Commission in the year 2005. The functional autonomy of the police and police accountability were the buzzwords amongst the political leadership, media and intelligentsia that set the tone for the “ruling ideas” prevalent then. The other variables that shaped the policy environment in Kerala during the policy processes of Janamaithri are worth examining. In a democracy, “political will” is a key factor to navigate the policy processes through the “window of opportunity”, the policy window. A policy entrepreneur waits for an opportune moment to push his ideas through about problems and preferred solutions, and succeeds in convincing the ruling and opposition dispensations to carry forward the policy. A few committed senior police officers and leaders of the ruling party in Kerala played the role of policy entrepreneur by involving the leader of opposition in the state level launching ceremony of Janamaithri. Later, when the leader of opposition became the Chief Minister of the state, three years after the launch, he took the scheme forward by scaling up the project and increasing the man power of the Janamaithri police stations. The police leadership carried out sustained measures to dispel misconceptions in the minds of the public about the policy and to garner larger public acceptance by engaging all stake-holders. Implementation guidelines were issued in the form of Government Orders, Police Circulars and subsequently incorporated in the State Police Act to ensure that the policy does not suffer from “predecessor-successor” syndrome. Training and orientation programmes for the front line police officers were organised to avoid agency problems and to ensure that the implementation was in accordance with the “intent” and “design” of the policy. Instead of a state-wide implementation, pilot projects were conceived to ensure a close fit between policy design and implementation. When the pre-implementation processes were properly appreciated and addressed, the outcomes became encouraging: commitment of actors to carry forward the policy, trust and acceptance by the people to overcome the “public inertia”, ownership of schemes by the community, system driven implementation,

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

191

Figure 6.1 Community Policing : Context, Process & Outcome Matrix

192

CHAPTER SIX

all of which helped laying a strong foundation for sound implementation of the policy.

Implementation Phase “A policy cannot be developed in isolation from the means of its implementation.” While identifying and appreciating the pre-implementation dynamics as precursors to the smooth transition for effective implementation, the means are equally important during implementation per se. The standard operating procedures (SOPs) are designed to ensure that the tasks are attended to with a certain level of efficiency and that at the same time, serious failures are avoided. “The organising principle of SOPs is not maximization but satisficing.” Detailed guidelines issued for the implantation of Janamaithri served this purpose. The modalities of “house visits” by the Community Police officers, the mainstay of the three-tier community policing scheme, were revised and made more flexible by obtaining feedback from the field functionaries (see Appendix-H). It is an example of prudence in policy making. Once the pilots became successful, the scheme was extended to other police stations in the state, from twenty initially to two hundred and forty eight at present. Simultaneously, planning for resource augmentation and scaling up during the implementation phase shows the foresight of the policy entrepreneurs. During the period of scaling up, the policy got the acceptance of all the actors and underwent the process of refinement. “Implementation is beset with agency problems.” The agent (field functionary) may not always act according to the interest and instructions of the principal (the police department or the government). Guidance, mentoring, aid and support to the field functionaries addressed the agency problem in Kerala. Exercising good old superintendence and control and periodically reviewing and issuing clarifications are meant to ensure that the implementation of the policy conforms to its “intent” and “design”. The government of Kerala appointed a senior police officer as the State Level Nodal Officer who supervises the process from the preimplementation phase with a mandate to review, control and monitor the scheme. A policy process is a series of thoughts and actions that produce a policy decision. Analysis, approval and acceptance are the “3As” of the processes. The Janamaithri as a public policy finally got the seal of approval of all the political parties by engaging them in the decision making process. In fact, the first twenty pilot police stations were selected, keeping in mind the fact that half of the pilot projects fell under the constituency of opposition legislators.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

193

Impact Phase Field study and research throws light on the impact of the Janamaithri scheme in terms of community specific advantages, police specific benefits and shared benefits. Community specific advantages include mobilisation and empowerment of communities to identify and respond to concerns affecting the community, increase in positive attitude towards police, a reduced fear of crime and greater sense of security. Some of the policespecific benefits are improved community-police relationship, leveraging on community resources and the empowerment of front-line officers. Shared benefits are those accrued to both the community and the police. These include a decreased potential for police-citizen conflict, a better flow of information between the police and the community and prevention of crime. Sample respondents from the community across the board have emphasised that their sense of security has increased, the neighbourhood has become safer and there has been reduction in crime. They felt that police is “just a call away”. Janamaithri placed special emphasis on the vulnerable and senior citizens. The frequency of “house visits” of the community police officers to elderly dependent couples is more than to ordinary households. This has resulted in a heightened sense of security for the elderly and vulnerable. The police have also addressed the concerns of the community as regards the non-availability of basic municipal services. The outcome? A far more positive attitude of the community towards the police. The police, on its part, has leveraged on the resources of the community for its own advantage. The community police officers are mostly the lower level, front-line police personnel with low motivation and initiative. The Janamaithri scheme has provided them with much needed recognition in the organisation and has made them part of the decision making process. The senior field functionaries like the Station House Officers have acted on the valuable feedback of the community police officers and succeeded in either preventing or detecting crimes. The community police officer plays the role of the “linking pin” between the community and the police station, a role which was hitherto the exclusive prerogative of the senior police functionaries or the influential member of the locality or of the political functionaries. The new “linking pin” organisational structure has not only empowered the frontline police functionaries but the community at large has also benefited from such arrangements by dispensing with via media to approach the police at the time of need. This will also make the police more accountable to the people it is meant to serve. The “agenda setting” of the policy processes started with this premise of the Police Performance and Accountability Commission

194

CHAPTER SIX

of Kerala in the year 2005. The role of the police is likely to be more proactive as opposed to a reactive organisation, one of the core philosophies of community policing. By integrating community policing strategies into the organisational structure and culture, the community, the policemen and the police organisation will be empowered, setting in the paradigm shift in the vision statement of the police.

Challenges In practice, Community Policing does not develop according to any single one dimensional process. Several factors such as a lack of political and management support, management priorities, low trust coefficient between the police and the public, internal communication problems, shortage of police capacity and resources and agency problems may hamper or set back the development of Community Policing. The variables enlisted under the context column in the pre-implementation phase in the context-processoutcome matrix - political will, negative mindset of the public, predecessorsuccessor syndrome, enlisting trust of the community, engagement of stakeholders, resource planning and publicity - are broadly the issues posing challenges to the Kerala police during the implementation of the Janamaithri project. They may be further sub-categorised under two major heads internal (from within the organisation) and external challenges (from outside the organisation).

Internal Challenges Internal challenges are those that arise from within the organisation. Many of the internal challenges to community policing are inbuilt in the policing system in India. Policing in India is an inheritance from the colonial rulers characterised by a rigid bureaucratic-militaristic structure, a reactive as opposed to a pro-active work culture, state-owned as against communityowned organisation. The management style of the organisation is authoritarian; the decision making is centralised with a top-down approach. More than ninety percent of the personnel constitute the constabulary who are underpaid, undertrained and overworked with low motivational levels. The organisation suffers from a resource crunch. Acute shortage of manpower in the face of multifarious duties poses a serious challenge to the police leaders seeking to introduce something new like community policing

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

195

which is a manpower intensive initiative. Coupled with these problems are the trust deficit of the public towards the police and a lack of transparency in its functioning. Some of the specific internal challenges faced by the Kerala police during policy making and implementation phases are listed out as follows. Resistance to change: The bulk of the police leadership including the middle management were sceptical of the Janamaithri initiatives on two counts – firstly, the tendency among police officers to “resist the intrusions of civilians into their business” and secondly, to “look down upon community policing measures as going soft and as a futile exercise”. Many of them promptly attributed Janamaithri to any rise in crime statistics, citing diversion of manpower to “non-core” police activities. It required a good deal of effort by the police policy entrepreneurs on internal marketing to overcome such mind-sets, although it still persists to some extent. Political support for the scheme helped to overcome this resistance to a large extent within the police organisation. Organisational behaviour: Community policing is not an independent entity within the department. Ultimately, the community policing philosophy must inundate the entire department. Community policing requires departments make substantive changes in how the department interacts with the public. The police officer must be many things, law enforcer and peace officer, armed symbol of authority and part time social worker (Kappeler and Gaines, 2012). In Kerala, the Janamaithri scheme was introduced incrementally as pilots; the community police officers were selected on the basis of integrity, good service records, voluntarism, and non-addictive habits from amongst the lower rung of the organisation. In the first and second phases of the introduction, only forty eight out of four hundred fifty odd police stations were earmarked for the scheme. The number of police personnel experiencing and adjusting to the new philosophy was less than ten percent of the strength of the organisation. They enjoyed the initial spotlight and exclusivity. This was one of reasons for the police personnel of the selected police stations being extremely motivated. The police leaders could hand-hold, train and guide the small number of “change agents” at the first and second phases of introduction of Janamaithri. But in the long run, the scheme has to be introduced in all the police stations of the state and the philosophy of community policing has to permeate to the entire organisation, making it a daunting task for the organisation to transform itself from a reactive-repressive-rigid structure to proactive-preventiveflexible one.

196

CHAPTER SIX

Predecessor-successor syndrome: The tendency of not aligning with the style of the predecessor as the incumbent feels ill at ease to ally with the established line of action is what may be termed as the predecessor- successor syndrome. It was a major obstacle at the pre-take off stage of the CP initiatives. A lot of good initiatives of the predecessor were lost in the process. A brilliant initiative of the predecessor was given a premature obituary. However, with institutional arrangements in place, a programme or initiative continues uninterrupted irrespective of the incumbents. Here, the system takes care of personal aberrations. The police circulars were issued by the state police chief to ensure coordinated and regular action and uniformity in application. This served as the guiding principles for the incumbents to achieve minimum levels of performance and more importantly not to abuse the policy. Government orders were issued encapsulating the dos and don’ts of the Janamaithri scheme while budgetary provisions were made to meet the expenses. Apart from showing the commitment and intent of the government, such a step ensured that the project does not suffer from the whims and fancies of the incumbent officer. Agency problems: “Implementation is beset with agency problems.” The agent (field functionary) may not always act according to the interest and instructions of the principal (the police department or the government). The routine the field functionary adopts may vary from the SOPs laid down by the organisational and the programme guidelines. For the beneficiaries of the scheme, the public, the community police officer is the symbol of government and the variance of the operating routine from the policy guidelines means that the outcomes may not correspond to those intended. The variance may not be intended but could be due to the operating constraints. The supervisory police officers are required to take feedback, allow the flexibility and make a course correction. Guidance, mentoring, aid and support to the field functionaries addressed the agency problem in Kerala. Exercising good old superintendence and control and periodically reviewing and issuing clarifications are meant to ensure that the implementation of the policy conforms to its “intent” and “design”. The government of Kerala appointed a senior police officer as the State Level Nodal Officer who supervises the process from the pre-implementation phase with a mandate to review, control and monitor the scheme.

External Challenges Political will and acceptance: A shorthand definition of political will is: the commitment of actors to undertake actions to achieve a set of

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

197

objectives and to sustain the costs of those actions over time. A policyproblem is chosen for decision making when a problem is recognised, a solution is available, the political climate makes it ripe for change, and the constraints do not prohibit action. The “window of opportunity” (policy window) is open when the three separate streams of problems, solutions and politics come together – this is a pre-requisite for policy acceptance. When the political will is lacking, the political stream does not align with the other two streams and the fate of the policy hangs in the balance. In case of Kerala, “Police Performance and Accountability Commission” was appointed by Sri A. K. Antony as Chief Minister of the Kerala (UDF) in the year 2003. When the Commission submitted its recommendations in March 2005, Sri Oommen Chandy (UDF) was the incumbent Chief Minister following the resignation of Sri Antony in the previous year. 2005-06 was the election year for the 12th Assembly. The decision of the government about the introduction of community policing might have been weighed against other pressing electoral agendas lying before it, although both the Chief Ministers belonged to UDF. Here, two factors should be considered firstly, the change of the incumbent Chief Minister and secondly, the preelection political commitments, set the tone of the political stream against any policy innovation. The role of policy entrepreneurs becomes crucial to push through and navigate the policy processes through the policy window. Two successive police chiefs of the state played this role with dexterity till Janamaithri was launched in 2008 as a full-fledged public policy during the LDF rule. Trust deficit: The essence of Community Policing is to minimise the gap between policemen and citizens to such an extent that the policemen become an integral part of the community they serve. In other words, the individual policeman should know each member of the community and he should, in turn, be known by them. That is to say that there is no anonymity or aloofness which is instead replaced with harmony and trust. The community has to reciprocate the new good will gestures initiated from the side of the police. However, the suspicion and lack of trust prevented the public from accepting the initiatives of the police at the policy making stage of Janamaithri. Such was the level of distrust that the public suspected an ulterior motive in the decision to “allow the youth wing of the ruling party to take over certain police function.” A community police officer said, “during the initial phases of house visits some residents offered me money thinking that this was the purpose of my visit. I had a tough time to explain them the objectives of Janamaithri.” The police leadership had to work overtime to plan new strategies to reach out to the public, engage all the

198

CHAPTER SIX

stake-holders and launch a well coordinated campaign to make their intentions clear. Resource scarcity: The police organisation functions at an optimal level within finite resources to perform infinite tasks. There is a significant gap between the department’s aspirations and the availability of resources. Any new mandate poses an additional burden on the scarce resources, be it logistics, manpower, transport or budget. Janamaithri is a manpower intensive initiative, as in the case of any other community policing scheme. Each Janamaithri Police Station needed an additional eight to ten police personnel to act as community police officers in the designated beats within police station. However, the decision of launching the scheme only in twenty police stations as pilots helped overcome the huge requirement of manpower. The state police chief, who himself was spearheading the initiative, had two options. Firstly, to ask the government to increase the manpower before the implementation and secondly, to manage the initial phase by mobilising resources from within the organisation and “selling” the spread-effect to the political leadership which in turn would initiate the much needed augmentation of manpower. The latter option was preferred and it paid off four years after the launching of the scheme when the government increased the strength of each Janamaithri police station by five police personnel. Budgetary provisions were made by the government to meet expenses relating to Janamaithri programmes. However, lamented a beat police man, “we have been asked to share our mobile phone number with the residents within our beat. Each call from a resident needs to followed up with a call or two from my mobile phone. I end up spending from my own pocket without being reimbursed.” In spite of budgetary provisions, the reimbursement of the legitimate expenses of a beat police officer for the public cause still remains unaddressed.

Recommendations The analysis of the context-process-outcome matrix and the challenges to community policing scheme in Kerala discussed in the preceding sections filter out a set of recommendations that may serve as guiding principles to the policy makers and policy implementers in introducing community policing schemes as a public policy. The knowledge on policy processes, the policy environment, dynamics of policy making and policy evolution during implementation makes the policy makers and the implementers prudent in appreciating the nuances of public policy. Some of the key recommendations may be listed out as follows:

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

199

Political support: Political will and support signal the commitment of the government to the policy and a willingness to sustain the costs of implementation over time. It also conveys a strong message to other agencies in the government for their full scale participation and involvement for the success of the scheme. In a democracy, the opposition of the day has an even chance to come to power and form the government. Therefore, the opposition political leaders must be taken into confidence during the policy making phase. The policy should, in essence, be apolitical and meant for public good. Engaging stake-holders: As a public policy, the community policing scheme intends to inform all citizens in its broad sweep. Without the wholehearted support of all stake-holders, the policy may not have widespread acceptance. Engaging the stake-holders like the civil society, the media, resident committees, opinion makers, the intelligentsia, and academics during the proposal stage clears the misconceptions and makes the policy objectives community centric with their feedback - all of which helps developing the ownership of the community towards the scheme. Trust-building measures: The essence of community policing is to minimise the trust deficit between policemen and citizens to such an extent that the policemen become an integral part of the community they serve. But the suspicion and lack of trust that exists between the police and the public may be an anti-thesis to such basic premises. The police leadership should plan out new strategies to reach out to the public and launch well coordinated campaigns to make their intentions clear. Public reception facilities at the police stations may go a long way in such direction with very little or no expenses. Pilots to start with: Piloting is an activity planned as a test or a trial for the implementation of a concept and its actionable dimensions, on a small controlled scale to allow for its full impact, benefits and weaknesses to be evaluated before the implementation of the concept on a widespread basis. Pilots ensure a closer fit between policy design and implementation. The “incremental” approach takes care of the resource crunch. Scaling up should follow from the success of the pilots. Selection and training of field functionaries: The field level officers who are to function as “beat officers” or “community police officers” should be selected on the strict criteria of service record, integrity, and voluntarism. They should undergo suitable pre-induction soft skills training. Formulation of Standard operating procedures (SOPs): The standard operating procedures (SOPs) are designed to ensure that the tasks attended to with a certain level of efficiency and that at the same time, serious failures

200

CHAPTER SIX

are avoided. Detailed guidelines should be prepared, spelling out the dos and don’ts for the field functionaries, supervisory officers and the stakeholders. Government orders may be published containing the SOPs to make it bindings on all actors. The SOPs may be periodically reviewed and amended with feedback from the stake-holders to make it more flexible and user friendly. Appointment of Nodal Officer: Implementation is beset with agency problems. The agent (field functionary) may not always act according to the interest and instructions of the principal (the police department or the government). Exercising good old superintendence and control and periodically reviewing and issuing clarifications are meant to ensure that the implementation of the policy conforms to its “intent” and “design”. A senior police officer may be appointed as the State Level Nodal Officer for such purpose and continue for a sufficiently long tenure. Internal marketing: The bulk of the police leadership, including the middle management, are sceptical of the community policing initiatives on two counts – firstly, the tendency among police officers to “resist the intrusions of civilians into their business” and secondly, to “look down upon community policing measure as going soft and as a futile exercise”. Many of them are prone to attribute the scheme to any rise in crime statistics, citing diversion of manpower to “non-core” police activities. It requires good deal of effort by the police leaders on the internal marketing of the concept to overcome such a mind-set. “Community Policing”, as a subject, may be included in the police training syllabus. Legal and Institutional framework: The police mission statement needs to be redefined with community policing as one of its core objectives. The new Police Act, to be legislated or under the process of legislation by the state governments on the basis of directives from the Supreme Court, should incorporate community policing practices within the Act for it to acquire legitimacy as a legislative policy. A state level training and resource centre may be established to institutionalise the planning, coordination, research and training activities. Resource Planning: Government must provide budgetary support for undertaking various activities under the community policing schemes. The additional manpower and other logistics support should be committed by the government. The police organisation must be prepared to successfully run the pilots out of its own resources till the spread effects are felt by the communities which, in turn, act as pressure groups demanding resource augmentation from the government.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

201

Social Audit and Research: The impact and outcome analysis of the project should be periodically conducted through competent third party institutions and the feedback acted upon for course correction, if necessary. Internal and external research by police practitioners and academics should be encouraged to modify and improvise on existing practices. Herring-bone policy model: An overarching community policing scheme with “beat police officer”, “community liaison group”, “citizen volunteers” and “district advisory committee” may be adopted for its wide sweep and scope. Other target specific schemes for students, senior citizens, women, slum dwellers and juveniles in conflict with the law should supplement the overarching model like the herring-bone structure as scaffolding. Janamaithri Suraksha Project vis-a-vis the National Overarching Model on Community Policing: “Police Community Partnership”, the national overarching model drafted by the members of Micro-mission-II of the National Police Mission, MHA, Government of India, of which the author was a member, and the Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP), the flagship community policing scheme of Kerala police are both three-tier structures with the beat police as the mainstay. However, policy makers of the JSP have gone a step ahead with the introduction of “house visits” by the beat or community police officer to get him acquainted with the members of the community. It had made all the differences to the outcome of the policy processes: trust level between the police and the public has increased, overall sense of security of the public has gone up and the members of the community and frontline police officers feel empowered. The author, as Chairman of the Committee on the implementation of community policing in the state of Odisha (another state in India), has drafted a policy outline, “Ama Police”, along the lines of the JSP, having regard to the tangible outcomes the latter has shown during the field study. The proposal has been accepted by the Government of Odisha and was launched as a pilot in each of the thirty districts of the state in April, 2013. The field research of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the flagship community policing scheme of the Kerala police, was conducted in the fourth year of its launching, a relatively smaller span of time to assess the outcomes which are mostly tangible in long term. Further study on police and community empowerment, changes in organisational behaviour, the impact of JSP on police accountability and transparency will bear interesting insights into the impact of the policy. The core components of JSP as a public policy could be replicated in democracies around the world, with the rule of the law being the guiding principle.

202

APPENDIX A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA HOME DEPARTMENT: JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT-MANNER AND MODALITIES APPROVEDORDERS ISSUED Home (E) Department G.o. (P) No. 107/2008/Home Dated,Thiruvananthapuram 21st June, 2008. Read : - 1) G.O. (Rt.) No. 3161/2007/Home, dated 23.11.2007 2) Letter No. C3-11792/2004, dt. 10.01.2008 from the Director General of Police Thiruvananthapuram, ORDER Government have initiated various activities to bring about People Friendly Policing initiatives in the day to day functioning of the Police, which is an abiding concern of the Government of Kerala. The Comprehensive Community Policing Initiative being implemented by the Government envisages integrating the aspirations of the local community in the style and system of local policing. The draft scheme thus formulated to implement the community policing has been placed before the representatives of political parties, Leaders of Public Opinion, social Activists, Media, Public Administrators and Police Officers from across the country. Based on their perceptions and comments, suitable modifications have been incorporated in the scheme. Based on the aforesaid exercises. an elaborate scheme has been formulated to implement the scheme which will be known as Janamaithri Suraksha Project. As such, Government are pleased to accord formal approval, of the project "Janamaithri Suraksha Project" and also to lay down the manner and modalities for the implementation of the scheme as appended as Annexure to this Order. 2. Expenditure for the project will be incurred only under budgetary provision and if any expenditure is additionally incurred, the same will be met only after obtaining separate financial sanction. By order of the Governor K.J. Mathew Additional Chief Secretary to Government.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

203

To The Director General of Police, Thiruvanthapuram The Accountant General (Audit/A&E Kerala Thiruvanthapuram) The District Treasury Officer, Thiruvanthapuram The Finance Department Store Purchase Department Stock File/Office Copy

Janamaithri Suraksha Project People are sovereign in any democracy. The police cannot, hence treat people as mere silent subjects whose concern are of no material consequence. On the other hand, the people, though they have every fundamental right to demand security of life, property and dignity from the state and the police, cannot remain totally divorced and aloof from the responsibility of ensuring effective security, for, they also share the burden of governance in their capacity as ultimate masters. People are subject to the law which they themselves created; therefore they necessarily have to proactively participate in the process of preventing the violations of enacted law. Law enforcement in a democracy is thus a process by which public security is ensured by securing and enlisting the willing cooperation of people who are the beneficiaries of such enforcement. Community policing is the process which seeks the responsible participations of the citizenry in crime prevention at the legal level of the local community, conserving the resources, both of the community and of the police in fighting against crimes which threaten the security of the community. It has gained currency across the world and is becoming the norm in all democratic countries. They experience shows that by seeking the active cooperation of the public in performance of the policies duties, the process of Law enforcement has become for more effective,. Community policing project taken up individually at various places have gained much acceptability in Kerala over the years. Therefore Government of Kerala has decided to integrate, in phased manner, community policing into the structure of normal policing. ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Project’ is the name given to the Community Policing Programme being adapted by the Kerala Police.

204

APPENDIX A

1. Janamaithri Suraksha project - The Objectives : a) Prevention of Crime b) Furthering co-operation and mutual understanding between police and the community. c) Furthering security related mutual cooperation among Citizenry.

2. Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi In every police station a ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi’ should be formed. The Samithi should endeavor to undertake and implement the ‘Janamaithri Suraksha Project’ within the limits of the respective police station. With the help of the Station House Officer, the Circle Inspector may suggest the names of the person to be included in the Samithi. The SubDivisional Police Officer may examine such names and such list of names will be submitted to the District Police Superintendent. After due consideration and such consultation as he may deem proper, the District Police Superintendent will constitute the Samithi and inform the concerned. The Samithi should have proportionate representation from among women the Scheduled Caste and Tribes. Respectable citizens from the locality who are active in the educational and cultural field should be included in the committee. High School/College Headmaster/Principal, Teachers, Retd. Officers, Ex-Servicemen, Corporation/Word Councilors, Merchants NGOs, Workers Representatives Residence Association OfficerBearers, Postmen Kudumbasree Office bearers etc may be included in the committee. Preference may be given to include office bearers of Residential Associations. Those who are involved in any criminal case should not be included in the committee. Office-bearers of any political party need not be excluded from the committee if they fulfill other conditions. Care should be taken to pre-empt allegations that any communal or political interest is treated with any special advantages. The structure of the Samithi should be in such a way that, ordinary citizens with civic sense and sense of social responsibilities get an opportunity to utilize their talents for the greater safety of society at the local level. The process of constitutions of the samithi should be above board and the members should be persons who command the respect of the community. The Samithi should have at least ten members, and preferably not exceed 25. The meetings of the Samithi will be chaired by the Circle Inspector of Police and he will also officiate as Secretary of the Samithi. An additional

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

205

Sub Inspector or an Assistant Sub Inspector from the police Station may be designated as the Community Relations Officer by the Circ le Inspector. The Community Relations Officer should dedicate himself to the cause of implementation of the “Janamaithri Suraksha Project” and should render all help to the Circle Inspector for the success of the programme. The Samithi may be reconstituted every two years. The District Superintendent of Police may remove any member, who involves himself in any crime case or action involving moral turpitude.

3. Meetings of the Samithi: The Samithi should meet at least once in a month at a pre-announced date and place. In the meeting, the public residing in the Beat of that area (or of other areas if they so desire) can attend and give their suggestion. The participation of maximum number of people from the local Beat may be ensured. In case the participation of the public is very meager, the Samithi may examine the reason for the same and give necessary advice to the Beat Officer. The minutes of such meetings should be prepared by the Circle Inspector of Police (Secretary and a copy of the minutes should be sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police). The supervisory officers should examine the minutes assess the quality of the meeting and in case it is felt necessary provide advice to the Secretary of the Samithi. The Sub-Divisional Police Officers may attend such meetings once in three months and the Superintendent of Police may attend such meetings at least once in a year. Apart from the monthly meetings, the Samithi may hold such meetings as and when need arises.

4. Subject for discussion in Samithi meetings: The following matters may be discussed:(i) Any matter concerned with security of the area problems like that robbery, bootlegging, traffic offences etc and their remedial measure. (ii) Introducing patrolling with a view to preventing, crime, traffic warden system etc. (iii) Organising awareness programmes to educate the public one reducing crime and about security measures to be installed/introduced. (iv) Information regarding organized crime, environmental crimes etc. in the area.

206

APPENDIX A

Disputes between individuals or groups cases under investigation of trial etc should not be discussed. Decisions which are generally acceptable and which are lawful may be taken up for implementation. As far as possible implementation should be through consensus. If it is felt that more than 20% of the members oppose any matter such a matter need not be implemented as Samithi activity. As the Samithi does not have any statutory authority and is only meant to facilitate better policing the method putting matters to vote need not be resorted to. Matters may be decided in a friendly atmosphere and divisive and partisan discussions may be avoided. In case undesirably heated discussions occur in a meeting the next meeting may be presided over by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

5. Activities of the Samithi: Different projects chosen as per need, may be implemented after discussions and decisions in the Samithi meetings. As per local needs, the following types of projects inter alia may be implemented. a) Night patrolling with public co-operation b) Co-ordinating with private security guards c) Knowing new residents and strangers d) Fitting Burglar Alarm and security systems e) Helping senior citizens and physically challenged citizens f) Protection of women and children g) Awareness programmes h) Traffic warden system i) Organizing counseling centres to resolves family discords, drinking habits etc may be started. j) Monitoring maintenance of street lights, traffic lights etc. k) Implementation of projects encouraging blood donation, eye donation, organ donation etc. l) Organizing self defence courses. m) School based safety and vigilance programmes. n) Co-operating with Kudumbasree Units etc. o) Preventing illicit sale of liquor and drugs. p) Monitoring illegal financial institutions. q) Complaint Card Systems. r) Disaster Management and Mitigation s) Trauma, Rescue and First Aid Projects t) Victim Support Cells

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

207

If so required for the implementation of a particular project, subcommittees may be appointed for a particular area or for a particular project. Formation of such sub-committees can be done during the Samithi meetings and such Sub-committees can include persons appropriate to the task intended. The membership of such sub committees need not be confirmed to the members of the Station Level Samithi.

6. Janamaithri Beat: A local area which includes around 500 houses may be considered as a Janamaithri Beat Unit. A Police Station jurisdiction may be divided into is many “Janamaithri Beats” as required. One beat area should not exceed 3 square Kilometers. A beat Officer should be able to cover a “Janamaithri Beat” within a few hours time. For example a Post Man is able to cover his beat area daily. Similarly a Beat Officer also should be able to cover his beat area completely during a day’s duty. Whenever possible the Station House Officer should depute a Woman Officer also to assist the Beat Officer.

7. Janamaithri Beat Officer and his duties:Each “Janamaithri Beat” will be in charge of an Assistant Sub-Inspector or a Head Constable. The serving of summons, executions of warrant, locating the address handling the Complain Box and all other duties to be performed by the police in the area will be co-ordinated and done by the Beat Officer, subject to the supervision by the Station House Officer. Within 3 months of taking charges, every Beat Officer should personally know at least one member of every household in his beat. Every road line and by lane in the beat should be well known to the beat Officer. The Beat Officer should know not only the houses but also all other establishments in the best area. He should constantly interact with service providers in the area like postmen, linemen, milkmen gas agencies etc. because they are the persons who frequent the area practically on a daily basis and should have constant channels of communications open with them at a personal level. The Beat officer should also keep a rough map marking the major junctions, building etc. of the area. He should also keep a diary containing the phone numbers and address of all important establishments and persons. A copy of the map and the diary should be kept in the Police Station also.

208

APPENDIX A

The name and identity of the Beat Officer may be exhibited at important places in the beat area. This will help the public to know their Beat Officer. At least thrice a week the Beat Officer should reach a pre-announced place at a pre-announced time so as to contact the public as well as to receive complaints from them. The details of such public contact programmes such a place, date, nature of complaints and suggestions received etc. may be entered in the beat diary by the Beat Officer, who may get it countersigned by the Station House Officer. Apart from the beat diary, a beat register should also be kept by the Beat Officer. This register containing the details of daily matters, petitions etc, should be countersigned by the Station House Officer. The Beat Register should be kept in the Police Station. For, at least 20 hours in a week, the Beat Officer should go around the beat area on foot and do his work by contacting the public. The Beat Officer should gain the confidence of the public in his area in such a manner that any common citizen would feel free to approach him in a fearless and comfortable manner. The Beat Officer should be a role model to any citizen as far as manners, etiquette and character are concerned.

8. District Advisory Samithi: At the District level, an Advisory Committee headed by the District Superintendent of Police should be formed to ensure proper supervision regarding the functioning of Janamaithri Suraksha Project”. Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Municipal Chairman/Mayor as well as other important personalities nominated by the Superintendent of police may be included in the Committee. The committee may consist of 10 to 20 members. This committee may convence a meeting once in three months and review the working of Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi of the concerned District and give necessary suggestions instructions etc. for improvement of their performances.

Subjects which shall not be discussed in Janamaithri Samithi Meetings. (To be exhibited at the meeting places) (i) No discussion should be done about cases which are under investigation or trial or about the accused in such cases. (ii) Any private dispute between individuals and remedial measures for such disputes should not be discussed. (iii) No discussion accusing any individual or organization should be held about any petition/crime case which is already registered/given to the Police Station.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

209

(iv)The behavior, conduct or working of any individual should not be discussed. (v) The deeds of any political/social organization should not be criticized. (vi) Under no circumstances, the Samithi meeting should function like an unofficial Court. Hence no effort should be made to resolve the problems relating to criminal activities of any person during the Committee Meeting. (vii) Discussion as to who are to be included in rowdy history sheets/ police records/under provisions of Goonda Act, or as to who are to be treated as a accused in crime cases shall not be permitted in the meeting.

Activities to be undertaken by a Beat Officer i) The Beat Officer may talk to the public frequently (near ration shops, Post, Schools, Community Halls etc.) regarding the programmes to be implemented/already being implemented under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project” ii) From the knowledge gained through experience and contacts in the beat area, the Beat Officer may find out appropriate projects for his beat area and such projects may be presented in the Samithi Meeting by him. He may also take the lead in implementing such projects. iii) Whenever there is some natural calamity, outbreak of contagious diseases etc in his beat area, the Beat Officer may immediately inform the same to the concerned authorities and also give leadership in taking remedial actions. iv) In case the Beat Officer gets any intelligence regarding communal tensions, social unrest etc. in his area, he may immediately inform the same to the Station House Officer. v) In case any information is received with regard to development of problems in connection with festivals meals etc the same may be informed to the Station House Officer. vi) The Beat Officer may inform the Station House Officer about any type of crime or dangerous activity taking place within his beat area. vii) The beat Officer may visit intent cafes, phone booths parallel educational institutions, cinema theaters, video shops and other places where students and youngsters may gather and he may keep a friendly watch to prevent any wrong tendencies in such places. viii) In case the Beat Officer notices school children visiting cassette shops, pan masala shops etc. or smoking in public places the Board Officer may give them proper advice and if necessary alert parents appropriately.

210

APPENDIX A

ix) When taxi drives go for trips at night along-with strangers the drivers may be advised to record the name, address and signature of such persons in the taxi stand to ensure the safety of the drivers. x) The name and addresses of all the strangers who come and stay in the area for doing constructions work, Jewelry work etc. may be collected with the help of the contractors who bring them. Such information can be handed over to the Station House Officer. xi) The names and address for persons who come and stay as household help etc. from outside the locality may be collected and kept.

What should not be done by a Beat Officer i) He should not discusses or pass on information, publicly or private about any case under investigation or trial in the Police Station/Court. ii) He should not pass on any information about any person to be attested by the Police/to be included in the array of accused/goonda list etc. iii) Secret information or personal information regarding any person should not be collected or discussed. iv) The Beat Officer’s opinion about any of the individuals or organizations in the locality should not be discussed either publicly or privately by the Beat Officer. v) Under no circumstances should a Beat Officer enter a women’s house in his area without the presence of Women Police Officer or a Woman Samithi Member. vi) The Beat Officer should not try to negotiate and settle any issue connected with a criminal case registered already. However in case of an accused in a criminal case again troubles the victim the Beat Officer should take immediate remedial measures to help the Station House Officer in preventing the same. vii) The Beat Officer should not make public the names and persons who gives his secret information. He should never share such information with the public in the beat even during private conversations. viii) Regarding investigations of crime cases, political issues etc. the Beat Officer should not share his views with members of the public. ix) In case an individual in the beat area violates any traffic rule or including in any criminal activity, he should never try to help such persons escape the clutches of law. x) The Beat Officer may receive petitions from the public enter the same in the beat register and hand over the same to the Station House Officers. Under no circumstances should the Beat Officer show the petition to the counter petitioner.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

211

xi) The Beat Officer’s duty is to help the Station House Officer resolve the petition in the Police Station. The Beat Officer should not discuss the petition at the places where he conducts his beat meeting and he should not try to settle the petitions at such places. xii) In case the public from a beat come to the Police Station, they can contact the Beat Officer. However they are free to contact any Police Officer and they need not seek the permission of the Beat Officer termed the Station House Officer or other Police Officers.

Establishment With Which The Janamaithri Samithi May Co-operate. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Juvenile Justice Board Free Legal Aid Cell Blood Banks Rehabilitation Centers for Women Helpline and Rehabilitation Centers for children Kudumbasree/self help groups for women Hospitals Fire Force Disaster Management facilities and Organisation Public information channels in the District Collectorate Organization like Red Cross, NCC etc. NGOs working in the field of traffic accident prevention and trauma care Ex-servicemen organizations Pensioners’ organizations Senior Citizens’ organizations Schools and Colleges.

Some projects which may be implemented under Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi From amongst the projects mentioned below, those suitable for a particular locality may be selected by the Station House Officer and Beat Officers and placed before the Janamaithri Samithi. Suitable projects may be selected after consultation and discussion in the Janamaithris Samithi Meetings. Apart from the projects mentioned below, other projects which can be implemented according to local needs may also be taken up.

212

APPENDIX A

1. Janamaithri Night Patrolling Project This project envisages ensuring the security of a place within cooperation of the inhabitants of that place. Along with night patrol Police Constables the ‘’Janamaithri Patrolling Group’ can do night patrolling. The Beat Officer also may engage himself in night patrolling along with the Janamaithri Patrol team whenever possible. From a Janamaithri Beat area a list of able bodied males who are not involved in any crime cases may be prepared by the Beat Officer. In every ward a route may be decided for night patrolling and everyday by turns group of 4-5 persons may be deputed. During night patrol in case anybody is found in suspicious circumstances, the same may be informed by the group to the Police Station. In case any vehicle is found in unusual circumstances, the registration number and other identifying information may be passed on to the Police Stations. In case any establishment or place is found to be occupied by antisocial elements or thieves the same may also be informed to the Police Station. The group members should equip themselves with torches etc. while doing night patrol. The group members may also inform the Police Station about wandering groups, about those who encroach revenue land, about any seemingly illegal constructions going on at night etc. In case the incident requires immediate attention of the Police, the Police may take necessary action their and there. In case the matter can be dealt with later the Beat Officer may enquire about the same on the subsequent day.

2. Coordinating private security guards In a beat area a number of private security guards may be on duty. They might have been engaged by houses, commercial establishment etc for their security independently or from various security agencies. Every beat Officer should collect the complete address and other details of all the private security guards as well as the agencies engaging them and such details should be kept in a register. The details of work in which they were engaged earlie, their home address etc. should be collected and kept. While on the beat, the Beat Officer may contract the security guards and discuss with them the security problems in the area. Moreover the Janamaithri night patrol groups may also liaise with the private security guard and exchanging information. The Station House Officer can brief and debrief private security guards on matters related to security.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

213

3. Building up infrastructure for security Those who have engaged private security guards in shopping complex, flats etc may be interested in installing other security features also. Such persons and others who are yet to opt for any security measures, may all be invited and discussions held about installing burglar alarms, security cameras, security lights etc. Such awareness would encourage them to install necessary security measures in their premises. The Police Control Room can provide service to houses/establishments fitted with burglar alarm. Apart from the Police Control Room alarms could be connected to the mobile phones of private security guards relatives, friends etc by discussing such matters in the Janamaithri meetings, such security system could be popularized.

4. Stranger Check programmes The security vulnerability in an area may be proportional to the number of strangers and floating population in the area. Many strangers migrate to growing cities in search of jobs. The contractors who bring such labourers should be contacted to collect the complete address and photos of such labourers and such data should be kept by the Beat Officer. During Janamaithri Meetings public may be requested to provide information about renting of houses to strangers. Awareness may be created that if the public could ensure that there is no unknown person in his locality the security of the area could be ensured to a great extent. Those agencies providing home nurses, house maids etc. should also be given awareness classes. Such agencies should engage people for work only after verifying their complete address.

5. Protection of senior citizens In many localities senior citizens live alone. The Beat Officer may collect information about such citizens. Their address, phone numbers etc may be kept in a separate register. Their issues may be placed before the Samithi and the Samithi can decide on the best course of action to look after their welfare and chalk out a plan of community visits, assistance, emergency contacts etc. The neighbors also can be told to bring to the notice of the police any difficulties faced by such senior citizens. Helpline numbers can also be prescribed for reliable, round the clock responses.

214

APPENDIX A

6. Security and Welfare of women and children. Women’s Control Room and Women’s Helpline may be established and popularized through Janamaithri Samithis. In the Janamaithri Samithi meeting, the security issues relating to women and children can be discussed and strategies devised to counter the threats and to minimize the risk. Helpline numbers can be prescribed and exhibited on the Janamaithri notice boards. The Samithis may take the initiative to conduct legal literacy programmes etc. for women and children with the help of Panchyaths/Municipalities, Kudumbasree units, educational institutions etc. By seeking the services of socially committed Clinical Psychologists etc. the Samithis may take the initiative to start Family counseling Centers.

7. Crime Stopper System: Every District has a Crime Stopper System with a toll free telephone number (1090). The public can ring up and inform the police about crimes through this number. The person giving information need not reveal his identity. But the person will get a secret code number. By mentioning this code number, the person can again contact Crime Stopper Number after two or three days and find out the action taken by the police on his information. If Crime Stopper System is popularized through Janamaithri Project, the police will be able to stop crimes, arrest criminals and detect crimes by collecting information from public. The number 1090 may be exhibited on all Janamaithri notice boards. Moreover the Beat Officer should inform the public about the existence of such a facility. He should also reassure the public that the informant’s identity would remain confidential. Information about illicit distillation distribution of illicit arrack, ganja, explosives etc. could be passed or to the police by the public without any difficulty. They can also register their petitions regarding traffic, offences against women etc. through the Crime stopper system. This is an excellent opportunity for the public to participate in prevention of crimes and Janamaithri Samithis will be able to popularize the same.

8. Traffic Warden System All responsible citizens would like to associate themselves with projects meant to improve traffic in their locality. To enable such citizens to render such free service, Traffic Warden System exists in many advanced countries.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

215

This is a system in which trained citizens and students perform traffic control duty for three or four hours in a week in their neighborhood. The Traffic Wardens are given badges for identity. Selected school/college students or other citizens may be given adequate traffic training through special programmes and these trained personnel can be deputed to assist the police in traffic control. The service should be completely voluntary. Such programmes will be very useful to control crowd in front of schools and colleges during peak hours. Such programmes would also help in inculcating proper traffic culture among the student community as well as among the citizens. The Janamaithri Samithis may organize awareness programmes for students, drivers and every type of road users with the help of Traffic Wardens. This programme may also help in encouraging the people to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities, traffic related problems such as road engineering defects, frequent occurrence of accidents at any particular spot, absence of street lights, traffic signal etc. Samithi may also organize film shows on traffic which will help to inculcate desirable traffic culture among the citizens.

9. Blood Donation Programme Programmes encouraging blood donation may be organized with the co-operation of the Health Department, NGOs etc. The blood group, phone numbers and address of willing blood donors may be collected by the Samithi and kept in a register by the Beat Officer in every Police Station. Whenever a need arises, people can contact the Police Station and utilize this facility. The local hospitals can also be requested to co-operate in this activity. This will be highly beneficial at the time of natural calamities or accidents.

10. School/College Jagratha Samithis Vigilance cells could be organized in the schools and colleges so as to train students in responsive and responsible citizenship. The Suraksha Samithis can organize a meeting of school/college authorities and talk about the project. Under the leadership of teachers Jagratha Samithis may be organized including selected children. These Jagarths Samithis can organize awareness programme on traffic, legal literacy etc. with the help of the Samithi classess on unarmed combat, yoga etc can also be organized. Complaints Boxes can be kept in the schools and colleges which should be regularly opened by the Beat Officer. Problems of students during bus

216

APPENDIX A

journey etc can be solved in this way. As a part of the project, School Traffic Clubs and School Traffic Wardens may also be encouraged. The Jagraths Samithis can help the student do social service along with the people of the locality. The Jagratha Samithis can also popularize Crime Stopper and Helpline telephone numbers among the students so as to encourage the student to pass on the information to the police to prevent crime.

11. Vanitha Jagratha Samithis With the help of Women Police and the Beat Officers in the Police Station the Janamaithri Samithis may form Vanitha Jagratha Samithis. A Woman sub Inspector for Woman Police Constable may be made advisor of the Vanitha Jagratha Samithis. In the Vanitha Jagratha Samithi meeting the Beat Officer/the Station House Officer may participate. With the co-operation of Kudumbasree units, NGOs, Panchyat/Corporation etc. legal literacy classes can be organized for the women. Through the activities of the Jagartha Samithis women can be given awareness about how to move safely as well as how to respond to atrocities committed against them. The Jagratha Samithis can popularize the Vanitha Helpline number. They can also spread awareness about the existence of the Vanitha Control Room, Family counseling centres etc. Through Jagratha Samithis women would be able to report crimes against them and it can also be ensured that women get justice.

12. Security for Taxi Auto Drivers and other labour Special programmes can be organized for the security of auto/taxi drivers. Through awareness programmes the taxi drivers themselves can be educated to take the initiative to keep the addresses and if necessary to keep the fingerprint of the strangers while going on night trips. Programmes can also be organized for security of a locality with the help of workers who regularly frequent in the locality. If awareness is given to railway porters, porters in the bus stand etc. they can help the Samithi when they spot any suspicious activities. If regular drivers are given awareness programme on a traffic rules and regulations it would help reduce accident rates. Moreover if they have confidence in the Samithi and the Police they may also pass on information on crimes and criminals.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

217

13. Anti Drug/Liquore Programme. Sale of drug/liquorepan masala in the premises of school/college as well as sale of pornographic literature and compact disk are great menaces. The Janamaithri Samithis can organize programmes against such menace either independently or with the co-operation of other organizations working in the field. Pan masala can be banned with the co-operation of panchyaths. With the help of school Jagratha Samithis the sale of such products near the schools can be detected and prevented. Awarenss programmes against drugs and liquor can also be organized through Janamaithri Project. Information about Crimes such as sale of Drugs may be passed on to the Police through crime stopper system or directly to the Beat Officer or the Station House Officer.

14. Complaint Box Complaint Boxes could be kept at places like Ration Shops, Post Offices, Bus Stands, Railway Stations, School, Colleges etc. Such complaint boxes should be promptly opened and complaints should be handed over the Station House Officer by the Beat Officer. It should be ensure that remedial measures are promptly taken.

15. Disaster Mitigation Voluntary Committee Keeping ready a group of young volunteers who are trained and willing to work during natural disasters, manmade disasters, traffic accidents etc would help the police in managing such crises situations in better fashion. Through Janamaithri Projects, awareness programmes on first aid, emergency evacuation, disasters mitigation etc. may be organized.

16. Victim Support Cell The Victims of crimes may require various types of assistances. For example a girl subjected to an offence in her own house by her relatives may require rehabilitation. Emergency medical aid, counseling, temporary rehabilitation etc. may also be required in certain cases. Sometimes legal advice may be required. To support victim in such cases the Samithis can form Victim Support Cells including NGOs, Advocates etc. the Beat Officer can bring to the notice of the Station House Officer the cases which may need support of the Victim Support Cell.

218

APPENDIX A

17. Environment Friendly Samithi As times change, it is certain that protection of environment and prevention of related acts of public nuisance would be an important responsibility of the police. Banning of plastic, sand mining etc. cannot be implemented without the co-operation of the public. Through awareness programmes it is possible to develop such an atmosphere where the people themselves come forwarded to protect their environment. The Janamaithri Samithis may organize environmental awareness classes. Through School Jagratha Samithis, Vanitha Jagratha Samithis etc. such programmes could be popularized. The Samithis will be able to act as a catalyst in promoting such environmental awareness. Thus it would be possible to implement environmental protection laws with the co-operation of the public.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

219

APPENDIX B FGD TABLE-1/ FGD/ IDI Summary Report on Pre-Implementation Dynamics Table R1: Focus Group Discussions/ In-depth Interviews: Summary Information Sheet Pre-Implementation Dynamics Community and Participants Information Community name/location: Selection criteria: Facilitation No. of participants:

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B.JSS Fort/Thir; C.JSS/VJS, Kochi; D.JSS Kadavanthra,Kochi; E.JSS Irinjalakuda; F.JSS Thrissur East; G.JSS Thrissur West; H.Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs CP Intervention and Supervising Senior Officers Experience Sharing 82 Male and 43 Female

Focus Group Facilitation Information Date of focus group: Gender of facilitator: Recording method (Time Taken):

Remarks

01/04/12 to 5 / 04/12 M/F Note Taking/ Voice record (Minimum 31 Mins to 1hr 40 mins)

1 Month 04 Days Sensitive Transcript prepared

Focus Group Analysis: Preparatory and Reporting Information Review of Literature: Transcript: Inductive Matching: Number of quotes in summary report:

Jan-Mar 2012 June 2012 July 2012 66 quotes

Substantive 1 Month 1 Month Quoted

Explanatory comments on and learning from the process Community selection: Participant selection: FG facilitation and recording: Analysis, scoring, and reporting from FGs:

Other:

All participants are well represented and involved The participant selection was random and snow-ball method of selection is used The facilitation was good & the participation was high. In few cases the participants were very vocal to speak out their success stories For some topics it was difficult to decide which score was the best match as most of the members of CPOs, JSS and VJS were not very vocal and explicit about pre-implementation Phase of CP and hence explanations from qualitative in-depth interview of police officers were analyzed and quoted to make the analysis substantive and context specific. The members of CPOs, JSS and VJS narrated their experiences on implementation and impact phases of CP interventions. Some participants nodded their heads to endorse the views expressed by others.

220

APPENDIX B

Table R 2: Focus Group Summary Score Sheet Participation Score code: Very High=3 High-2, Average-1, Poor-0 Pre-Implementation Dynamics Parameter

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Total

1. Political will 2. Misconceptions in Public mind 3. Predecessor-successor syndrome 4. Developing TrustCommunity empowerment 5. Engaging of stake holders 6. Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training 7. Publicity and propaganda Total

1 3

2 3

1 2

1 3

1 3

1 3

1 3

3 3

11 23

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

3

12

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

24

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

10

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

3

14

12

14

12

11

11

12

11

21

104

Group Code

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B. JSS Fort/Thir; C. JSS/VJS, Kochi; D. JSS Kadavanthra,Kochi; E. JSS Irinjalakuda; F. JSS Thrissur East; G. JSS Thrissur West; H. Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

221

Table R 3: Focus Group Summary Narrative Report: Selected Sample Key Points, Quotes, & Examples Pre-Implementation Dynamics Parameter 1: Political Will Key Points: Political will is the exercise of an abstract feature of political

No of Groups/Persons

SM SW

SO

CM

SO

CM

SO

SW

VJS

SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CW- Community Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

authority to enforce certain act for the benefit of its intention, usually for the public welfare. A shorthand definition of political will is: the commitment of actors to undertake actions to achieve a set of objective and to sustain the costs of those actions over time. Political will can be separated into seven components: government initiative, choice of policy/programme based on technically sound, balanced consideration and analysis of options, anticipated outcomes and cost/benefits, mobilization of stakeholders, public commitment and allocation of resources, continuity of efforts, learning and adaption (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002). CP had a zigzag start and suffered delay, commencing in 2000 and materialised in 2008 due to several factors. In 2004 the Government of Kerala (UDF) appointed Justice K T Thomas Commission to evaluate the performance of policing in Kerala. The Commission strongly recommended introduction of community policing in the state. It was the starting point. By the time the Commission submitted its report in the year 2006 the government had been changed. The new government formed by the LDF was keen to implement the recommendations. This is the turning point of the political dynamics in respect to CP initiative. The police leadership on its part took all the political leaders irrespective of party affiliation on board and succeeded in mobilizing a strong political will for introducing CP in the state.

Notable Quotes/Examples: • "Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas. The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme" - Senior Officer • "Political leaders were made to understand the benefits of CP initiatives but it was not so easy" - CM • "When our MLA took active interest in the Jana Maithri’, things became different" - SM • "Government’s will and support in the CP initiatives sustain our sense security and self employment opportunities" - VJS member • ‘The Home Minister and other political leaders visited my police station on the occasion of ONAM’- CM stated • "In 2004 the Government of Kerala (UDF) appointed Justice K T Thomas Commission to evaluate the performance of policing in Kerala. The Commission strongly recommended introduction of community policing in the state. It was the starting point. By the time the Commission submitted its report in the year 2006 the government had been changed. The new government formed by the LDF was keen to implement the recommendations" - said a senior officer. • "As such initiatives were difficult to be sustain and without support from the state police or from the Government. I met the then Home Minister discussed without the theme, he was to very open to ideas and wanted to me experiment to one school and show him the results" - said a senior officer. • "When the Home Minister took interest and wished to have proper institutional arrangements for introduction of community policing, the scheme for the first time received patronage of the Government” - said a senior officer.

222

APPENDIX B Parameter 2: Misconceptions in Public mind

No of Groups/Persons

CM SM CW

VJS SO

CM

CM SO

SW

CW SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CW- Community Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

Key Points: Misconceptions in Public mind means the lenses through which the general populace over-read or under-read the police attitude and activities as nothing to their interest. More is misconceptions in public mind about police more is the gap between police and public. Tackling the mind set of police as well as public is one of the major tasks in the pre-implementation phase. One of the challenges was to establish lasting community partnerships by overcoming the perception that the police alone are responsible for the implementation of community programs and entirely accountable for the results. Similarly community policing is also not to be misunderstood as community sharing the burden of Police work. It is a process of working together for self help. Community policing is most effective and most sustainable when meaningful partnerships develop between police departments and the community. The development of partnerships and collaborative efforts are largely dependent on officers and administrators who connect with residents through frequent personal interaction. Ground work made in 2000 suffered due to some misconceived ideas. The misconceptions in the mind of the public generated suo-motu or geared by political parties. (a) Policing by Public, (b) Police trying to abdicate its role, (c) Opposition party’s rumour that only youth of the ruling political party to dominate, d) Police trying to make public a scope goat and e) Police trying to utilize the public for spying or as informer. Notable Quotes/Examples: • "While convincing a member a senior member of the opposition he raised apprehension if the youth of the ruling party would dominate the process and initiatives" - said a senior officer. • "Initially, there was reluctance by the residents to welcome the police to their houses for such visits. We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits" - said a senior officer. • "There was a misconception in the minds of the public that it would be policing by the public. The police wish to abdicate its roles and responsibilities to the public" - said a senior officer. • "Before introduction of JSP, when I used to visit my Beat, people used to offer me money because that was the impression of public about police visits. After we explained the objectives of JSP to the people and started visiting the houses the impression of the people has changed" said a CM/CW • "Since our childhood we had been afraid of the police and would not dare enter a Police Station premises. Now with the JSP such fear has been dispelled" - said a SM. • "Earlier I noticed middlemen and touts crowding the police station to ask favour for someone or to get someone’s genuine grievance redressed. But, now no such phenomenon was being noticed" - said a SW/VJS. “Earlier we were scared of the police and never disclose any relevant information to the police out of the fear and indifference. Things have changed with community policing approach. We treat the police as friend now" - said a SM

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

223

No of Groups/Persons

Parameter 3: Predecessor-Successor Syndrome Key Point:

SO

Predecessor/Successor Syndrome was a major obstacle at the pre take off stage of the CP Initiatives. When an incumbent joins a new post and succeeds his predecessor, he shows a general tendency not to follow the legacy and do something new. In the process, a brilliant initiative of the predecessor is given a premature obituary. However, with institutional arrangements in place, a programme or initiative continues uninterrupted irrespective of the incumbents. Here the system takes care of personal aberrations.

CM

SO

CW

SO

Notable Quote/Example:

3

•

1

2

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CW- Community Police Women, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

•

•

• • •

"If the programme can be sustainable after successor taking over without

Institutional arrangements, such as rules, constant monitoring by State level Nodal Officer and the availability of Govt. funds. Who ever be the successor has to continue with the scheme, if institutionalized" - said a senior officer. "Yes, initially it was a problem. Honest discharge of institutionalized duties through a centrally monitored mechanism by a state level nodal officer does not require any concern towards the good or evils of so called predecessor- successor syndrome" - said a senior officer. "With publication of the Government orders and police circulars, budgetary provisions and monitoring by nodal officer, a successor is duty bound to implement the scheme, even though he is unable to match the zeal of his predecessor" - said a senior officer. "Earlier a lot of initiatives were taken by the police officers but could not survive incumbents because of lack of institutional arrangements" said a senior officer. "Yes, since 2001, members of the resident association used to meet the police chief at his office. Some police chiefs discontinued the practice. But with JSP, things are in place" - said a CM "I do my duties as a CPO in accordance with the Government orders and police circulars. Change of incumbent does not make any difference" said a CW

224

APPENDIX B Parameter 4: Developing Trust-Community Empowerment Key Points: VJS

No of Groups/Persons

SW SM SM SO SO

CM

SO

CW

1

2

3

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CW- Community Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

Building and maintaining community trust is the cornerstone of successful policing and ethical law enforcement. The building and maintenance of trust takes a great deal of continuous effort. Law enforcement agencies can be accountable to their citizens by engaging them in any number of trust-building initiatives. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect. There is a inverse variation relationship between police public relationship and CP initiatives. Less is the gap police public relationship more successful are the CP initiatives. Community policing empowers and encourages the citizens to resolve the neighbourhood problems with their own initiatives. It is an invitation to the people to contribute their mite to day-to-day policing. It also means the people volunteering their time for community good. It will also mean that people will be asked to solve problems themselves, rather than to turn to the police for formal help. Community Policing is a way to remind everyone that it is a mutual partnership to help make the area a safe and attractive place to live and work. Law enforcement executives, bear the responsibility for demonstrating proper behaviour, informing the community about their department’s role in maintaining honour and integrity within the organization, and building and sustaining a trusting working relationship between the public and the police.

Notable Quotes/Examples: •

•

•

•

• • •

"The essence of community policing is to minimise the gap between policemen and citizens to such an extent that policemen become an integrated part of the community they serve. Here police serves as a catalyst and the people accept their share of responsibility for solving local problems related to crime, disorder and security" - said a Senior Police Officer (SO). "We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits. The visits and rapport between the residents and the Beat Officer was meant to bridge the gap between the community and the police" - said a senior police officer (SO). "The trust level of the public on the police organization has gone up after introduction of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. Having enjoyed the public trust and appreciation, the self esteem of the Beat Officers have also enhanced to the advantage of the organization" - said a Senior Police Officer (SO). "With the advent of this program we have become closer to the police. Since our childhood we had been afraid of the police and would not dare enter a Police Station premises. Now with the JSP such fear has been dispelled" said a JSS member (SM). "We have easy access to the police station. We can bring any problem of our locality to the notice of the Beat Officer at any moment. We have his cell number and he encourages us to talk to him" - said a JSS member (SM). "We treat them (beat police officers) as our friends and brothers. We have always welcomed them for house visit because we feel that that is meant for our wellbeing" - said a woman member of JSS (SW). "By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS (Vanitha Jagaran Samiti) meetings they (members) feel being closer to the police" - members of VJS..

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

225

Parameter 5: Engaging of Stake Holders Key Points:

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given

SO- Senior Officers

Community Policing is nothing but normal policing of a society in consultation, cooperation and partnership with the community at large. In a free and democratic society, citizens are supposed to have a say in how they are governed. Police is required to be responsive as well as accountable. Restructuring of policing priorities according to public expectations is an important component. This means opening of channels of communication with all stake-holders of the society and not merely the 'community leaders', and using their goodwill and help in preventing crime and disorder. In a democratic set up like ours the ‘political will’ to introduce a new philosophy in the policing in form of community policing is critical for the success of the scheme. Not only the members of the ruling party but the members of the opposition political parties are to be taken into confidence so that in the long run the scheme does not suffer due to the lack of political patronage. The members of the public, police leaders, media, academics, voluntary organizations and cross-section of all stake holders should be taken on board for the success of the community policing initiative.

Notable Quotes/Examples: •

"The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the

•

"We invited leaders of all political parties, irrespective of whether it is

society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists, members of the planning commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee) in the year 2007" - said a senior police officer (SO) ruling party or opposition political parties. The Chief Minister and the leader of opposition were also invited to attend meeting" - said a senior police officer (SO)

•

"At the end of the meeting there was consensus that such a scheme

•

"I met both the home Minister and then leader of the opposition, who is

•

"After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all

should be implemented in the State under the banner Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP). Final draft was agreed upon by the Government after taking into account the suggestions offered by different stakeholders" - said a senior police officer (SO) now the Chief Minister of the state, and discussed with them on the modalities of implementation" - said a senior police officer (SO) cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised to the input we received from the stake-holders" - said a senior police officer (SO)

226

APPENDIX B

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given

SO- Senior Officers

Parameter 6: and Training Key Point:

Resource Planning, Capacity Building

Planning, coordination, execution and feedback are different stages of implementation of this scheme. When the overarching community policing scheme, ‘Janamaithri’, was decided to be implemented in the state of Kerala, a conscious and deliberate decision was taken to start the programme in 20 pilot police stations of the state and to scale it up later. Community policing is a man power intensive scheme. Shortage of man power was addressed in due course by creating extra posts for Janamaithri police stations. Trained police officers are engaged as community police officers. A common training curriculum was chalked out. Senior police officers were earmarked as training resource persons. A state level nodal officer was appointed by the government to closely monitor the training and implementation phase. From 20 pilot police Stations the programme has been extended to nearly 250 police Stations at present within a span of four years.

Notable Quotes/Examples: • "On the recommendation of the DGP, the State Government notified me as the State Level Nodal Officer for the (JSP) Janamaithri Suraksha Project, since 2007. Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped ironing out a number of teething problems" - said a senior police officer (SO) • "Budgetary provision for Janamaithri Suraksha Project, Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralized training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project. The training was conducted centrally at the police training colleges" - said a senior police officer (SO) • "Now sanction of additional post have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1(one) female police officers" - said a senior police officer (SO) • "The initial success of the JSP was largely due to the Beat Officers. The 150 beat officers selected initially to act as Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas" - said a senior police officer (SO) • "We have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in form of the GOs by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 & 65). We have redefined the functions of the police in the Act, making it them more in sync with the objectives of the community policing" - said a senior police officer (SO) • "As on today we have 148 police stations covered under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. We will be extending the scheme to hundred more police stations by March, 2013"- said a senior police officer (SO)

COMMUNITY POLICING VJS

No of Groups/Persons

SM

CM

SO

SW

SO

CW

SO

2

3

Scores Given

PUBLIC POLICY

227

Parameter 7: Publicity and propaganda Key Points:

CW

1

AS A

Publicity and propaganda are deliberate & guided campaign to induce masses for the acceptance of and action on given idea. The success attained by CP initiatives today is mainly due to adequate publicity and due propaganda. The publicity messages were made more potent by incorporating opposing arguments in a way that tended to discredit them. Such strategy really worked because the stake holders were given the impression that the ultimate benefit shall go to them and them only. Care was taken against deliberate lies, double talk, omission of facts, distortion of facts, exaggeration, prejudiced appeals by certain community men and a section of .unwilling police men/officers. The police authorities took all the stakeholders on board, held seminars and workshops to disseminate the concept and allay the disinformation and apprehensions. Public confidence gained through attending more funeral ceremonies than Iftar parties- a true friend in need approach, spending maximum time in the community and increasing the number of house visits.

SW- Samiti Women, CWCommunity Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, Notable Quotes/Examples: CM-Community • "Draft ommunity policing scheme was prepared by the Kerala Police Police Men and submitted to the Government. The draft scheme was circulated VJS-Vanita Jagaran among various cross-section of the society, viz, leaders of different Samiti political parties, senior journalist, members of the planning SO- Senior Officers

•

•

• • • • •

commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee) " - said a senior officer "We invited the M.L.As/Urban Body Chairpersons having jurisdiction over those Police Stations and conducted a workshop. The Home Minister was present in the Workshop. All the apprehension of the people’s representatives were addressed and allayed" - said a senior officer "In 2007 we prepared a draft community policing framework and presented it to the government. After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised to the input we received from the stake-holders" - said a senior officer "We used multiple strategies towards publicity" - CW "Members of civil society arranged street plays" -SW and CW "Student Police Cadet initiative gave us students CP ambassadors" said a senior officer "Women in the area stated discussing the benefits of community policing" -VJS and SW "Publication of success stories in news paper encourage us to devote more time" - CM and SM

228

APPENDIX C FGD TABLE-2/ FGD/ IDI Summary Report on Implementation Phase Table R1: Focus Group Discussions/ In-depth Interviews: Summary Information Sheet Implementation Phase Community and Participants Information Community name/location: Selection criteria: Facilitation No. of participants:

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B.JSS Fort/Thir; C.JSS/VJS, Kochi; D.JSS Kadavanthra,Kochi; E.JSS Irinjalakuda; F.JSS Thrissur East; G.JSS Thrissur West; H.Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs CP Intervention and Supervising Senior Officers Experience Sharing 82 Male and 43 Female

Focus Group Facilitation Information Date of focus group: Gender of facilitator: Recording method (Time Taken):

01/04/12 to 5 / 04/12 M/F Note Taking/ Voice record (Minimum 31 Mins to 1hr 40 mins)

Remarks 1 Month 04 Days Sensitive Transcript prepared

Focus Group Analysis: Preparatory and Reporting Information Review of Literature: Transcript: Inductive Matching: Number of quotes in summary report:

Jan-Mar 2012 June 2012 July 2012 66 quotes

Substantive 1 Month 1 Month Quoted

Explanatory comments on and learning from the process Community selection: Participant selection: FG facilitation and recording: Analysis, scoring, and reporting from FGs:

Other:

All participants are well represented and involved The participant selection was random and snow-ball method of selection is used The facilitation was good & the participation was high. In few cases the participants were very vocal to speak out their success stories For some topics it was difficult to decide which score was the best match as most of the members of CPOs, JSS and VJS were not very vocal and explicit about pre-implementation Phase of CP and hence explanations from qualitative in-depth interview of police officers were analyzed and quoted to make the analysis substantive and context specific. The members of CPOs, JSS and VJS narrated their experiences on implementation and impact phases of CP interventions. Some participants nodded their heads to endorse the views expressed by others.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

229

Table R 2: Focus Group Summary Score Sheet Participation Score code: Very High=3 High-2, Average-1, Poor-0 Implementation Phase A B C D E F G H

Total

Parameter Formulation of SOPsPOs and GOs From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation Hand-holding

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

3

06

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

03

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

03

Service Delivery Strategies Resource Augmentation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

03

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

04

Monitoring, Control and Feedback Political Acceptance

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

05

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

03

Total

0

5

1

0

0

0

0

21

27

Group Code

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B.JSS Fort/Thir; C.JSS/VJS, Kochi; D.JSS Kadavanthra,Kochi; E.JSS Irinjalakuda; F.JSS Thrissur East; G.JSS Thrissur West; H.Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs

230

APPENDIX C Parameter 1: Formulation of Standard Operating Procedures

No of Groups/Persons

Key Points: SO SO CM SO CW CM SO

1

2

3

Scores Given CW- Community Police Women, CM-Community Police Men SO- Senior Officers

For any policy to be implemented properly with its avowed objectives and with uniform application irrespective of the incumbent, a set of guidelines are essential to be spelt out. These guidelines may be published in form of Police Orders issued by the DGP of the State or by the Administrative Department of the Government, e.g., Home Department in this case. They may be termed as Standard Operating Procedures. These SoPs serve as guidelines both for the political executives and bureaucrats. In Kerala the guidelines for implementation of community policing scheme, Janamaithri Suraksha Project, were issued and consolidated for over two years, starting with G.O. No 3161/Home dated 23-11-2007, which briefly spells out the introduction of Community Policing Scheme in the State and holding of Workshops, Seminars, distribution of publicity materials and training of police personnel. Subsequently, the Government published elaborate guidelines, dos & don’ts etc in GO No107/2008/Home dated 21-06-2008. The DGP, Kerala issued Circular No 34/2009 dated 20-08-2009 and 35/2009 dated 21-08-2009, enjoining the detailed guidelines of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, role and responsibilities of the Community Police Officers, that of Janamathri Suraksha Samithis etc. All these government orders and circulars helped consolidating the implementation of the scheme..

Notable Quotes/Examples: • "We have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in form of the GOs by the state government" – Senior Police Officer • "With the institutional support, police circulars and GOs and constant monitoring by the State Level Nodal Officer and the availability of government fund under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, who ever be the successor, has to continue with the scheme" - A senior Police Officer • "Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralized training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project" - A Senior Police Officer • "As many as 10 Government Orders have been issued as operational manual for the scheme" - A Senior Police Officer • "The Police Circulars issued by the DGP serve as the guidelines for the beat officers" - A Community Relation Officer of a Police Station • "The circulars issued by the Police Headquaters serve as the Standard Operating Procedure for us irrespective of our postings" - A Community Police Officer (CM) • "The activities of Vanitha Jagaran Samithi are governed by the guidelines issued by the DGP in form of circulars" - A woman Community Police Officer occasion of ONAM’- CW

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

231

Parameter 2: From Pilot Project to State-wide Implementation

No of Groups/Persons

Key Points:

1

2

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers

SO Pilot implementation is one of the key strategies to evaluate the efficacy of any new project. Pilot projects makes evaluation and analysis easier and help further SO developing the concept. 'Piloting' of a CP project is defined as an activity planned SO as a test or trial for the implementation of the concept and its actionable dimensions on a small controlled scale to allow for its full impact, benefits and SO weaknesses to be evaluated before implementation on a total basis. Pilot Project is a dynamic collection of professionals who co-create inventive, tangible, fully SO functional and sustainable solutions to compound problems. In Kerala there are 3 twenty police districts, but the police leadership suggested introducing Janamaithri Surashka Projects in fourteen police districts initially, limiting the scheme to twenty police stations. Janamaithri Suraksha Project proposal of the Police Department on being accepted by the Government, a Government Order to that effect (G.O. (Rt) No.3161/2007/Home dated 23.11.2007) was issued for implementation of the project in 20 selected Police Stations. It was formally inaugurated by the then Chief Minister, Sri V.S. Achyuthanandan on 26 March 2008. It was extended to 21 more Police Stations in 2009 (GO Rt NO. 1452/2009 Dtd.22.05.2009). Subsequently, the scheme was introduced in 107 police stations of the state vide GO (Rt) No 3472/2012 Home dt 18.11.2010, bringing the total number of police stations covered under Janamaithri scheme to 148. Having assessed the popularity and acceptance of the scheme by the public the Kerala government further extended the scheme to 100 more police stations in GO (Rt) 3424/2012/Home dated 20.11.2012. The idea was to market the positive effects of the Scheme among the public and generate demands from the people of the neighboring Police Stations through their representatives for introduction of the scheme in their respective police stations. In the process the police leadership can bargain with the government for more resources for effective implementation of the scheme in new areas.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "The government decided to implement the project in 20 police stations of the state as pilot. The 150 beat officers selected initially to act as Beat Officers in the 20 Police Stations integrated so well with the community that the success story was spread to other areas. The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme" - A senior police officer • "It was decided that the scheme would be implement in twenty selected Police Station as Pilot project. As on today, we have 148 police stations covered under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project. We will be extending the scheme to hundred more police stations by March, 2013" - A senior police officer • "Now sanction of additional post have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1(one) female police officers" - A senior police officer • "Pilot projects helped us showcasing our initiatives on community policing till the concept was whole-heartedly accepted by the political leadership" - A senior police officer • "With only 20 to start with, we have committed to implement the scheme in 248 Police Stations. It only shows that the idea of ‘pilot to whole’ was wellconceived" - A senior police officer

232

APPENDIX C

SO SO

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers

Parameter 3: Hand- holding Key Points: Hand holding is an expression meaning providing someone with guidance, assistance, encouragement or aid and support to lessen anxiety. In the context of implementation of a new, government sponsored scheme like Janamaithri Suraksha Project, the top police leadership is expected to constantly guide, aid, support and patronize the scheme at the initial phase of implementation to overcome the teething problems and make way for wider acceptance by public. In Kerala, the senior police officers passionately played this role till the Project received wider political and public acceptance with scaling up from pilot to state wide implementation.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "We trained the police officers of those police stations before formal launch of the project in Mar 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers" - A Senior Officer • "We carefully selected the police officers who would be manning the beats and coordinating the activities as Community relation Officers" - A Senior Police Officer • "We chalked out exclusive training program for the police officers at the State Police Academy and at the Police Training College" - A Senior Police Officer • "We chalked out a short duration training programme for the community police officers and officers of Janamathri police Stations. We conducted district level workshops inviting all stakeholders and introduced the beat officers to the members of public" - A Senior Police Officer • "Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped ironing out a number of teething problems" -A Senior Police Officer • "During the training the police officers cleared lot of doubts on the nittygritty of Janamaithri Suraksha Project. I circulated my phone number to all the beat officers for any problem or to solve any doubt" - A Senior Police Officer • "It was just like a new born baby to be taken care of every minute" - A Senior Police Officer

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

233

Parameter 4: Service Delivery Strategies and Standardization Key Points: SO

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers

Service delivery is the implementation of those services and making sure that they reach those people and places they're intended to. Strategy is all about integrating organizational activities and utilizing and allocating the scarce resources within the organizational environment so as to meet the present objectives. While planning a strategy, it is essential to consider that decisions are not taken in a vacuum and that any act taken by the organization is likely to be met by reaction from those affected, employees or political executives. Standardization of the service delivery involves developing a prototype model that fits into all areas after addressing the concerns of all stakeholders.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "It took a sustained and long term campaign to sell the idea to all stake holders including the police hierarchy" - A Senior Police Officer • "After it (the draft proposal) was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc. The draft was revised to include the input we received from the stake-holders" - A senior police officer • "In 2007 we conducted a state-level workshop involving police officers from rest of India who have experience in the community policing. Their inputs were integrated in our draft to make it more implementable" - A senior police officer • "The government decided to implement the project in 20 police stations of the state as pilot. We trained the police officers of those police stations before formal launch of the project in Mar 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers" - A senior police officer • "Yes, we have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in form of the GOs by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 & 65)" - A senior police officer • "The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists, members of the planning commission, social workers and other stakeholders. We also conducted a state level workshop inviting all these eminent persons and stakeholders (State level Consultative Committee) in the year 2007" - A senior police officer

234

APPENDIX C

No of Groups/Persons

Theme 5: Resource Augmentation Key Points: SO SO CM

1

SO

2

3

Scores Given CM-Community Police Men SO- Senior Officers

Policing is always fraught with acute resource crunches like manpower and finances. Implementation of a manpower intensive scheme like Janamaithri must have posed serious challenges to the police leadership on how to cope with such constraints. Government support to augment the resources is often conditional upon the successful implementation of a scheme like Janamaithri. The police leadership in Kerala succeeded in motivating the its officers and men to overcome such resource constraints at the initial stage of implementation of Janamaithri with the hope that once accepted by the people and political leadership, it’d have the leverage to press for creation of additional manpower and provision for funds. In fact, it happened during the subsequent phase when the scheme was extended to other police stations of the State. Extra manpower for each Janamaithri police station was created and budgetary provision was made for the scheme by the government.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "Now sanction of additional post have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1(one) female police officers" - A senior police officer • "As the community policing has been legally mandated as per the provision of the Kerala Police Act, the budgetary allocation would be part of police budget under non-plan scheme" - A senior police officer • "The political leaders of neighbouring areas demanded introduction of the scheme in their constituencies. When the politicians started taking interest in the scheme, it validated the acceptance of the scheme. We had the leverage to press for extra manpower and funds" - A senior police officer. • "Initially, we found it difficult to manage the Janamaithri with the existing manpower as it was already hard-pressed. But with increase in sanctioned strength of the manpower and budgetary support we find things easier" - A public relation officer.

COMMUNITY POLICING

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO CM SO

1

2

3

Scores Given CM-Community Police Men SO- Senior Officers

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

235

Parameter 6: Monitoring & Controlling Key Points: Monitoring and controlling consists of those processes performed to observe project execution so that potential problems can be identified in a timely manner and corrective action can be taken, when necessary, to control the execution of the project. Monitoring and controlling includes: Measuring the ongoing project activities (where we are); Monitoring the project variables (effort, scope, etc.) against the project management plan and the project performance baseline (where we should be); Identify corrective actions to address issues and risks properly (How can we get on track again); During the process of implementation of the Janamathri Project the core group headed by the State Nodal Officer, a senior police officer in the rank of IGP, was constantly monitoring the project. This included laying down criteria for selection of community police officer, training module, holding of seminars and workshops with the stake-holders, time to be spent for house visits, dos’ and don’ts’ for community police officers etc. At appropriate instances corrective actions were taken to address the issues and concerns that emerged in course of implementation.

Notable Quotes & Examples: •

• •

• • • •

•

"We trained the police officers of those police stations before formal launch of the project in Mar 2008. Seminars were held in all districts of Kerala inviting all stakeholders and opinion makers" - A senior police officer "Government appointed Dr B Sandhya, IGP as the nodal officer for the JSP. It helped us controlling and coordinating the program uniformly from the headquarters" - A senior police officer "Initially, there was reluctance by the residents to welcome the police to their houses for such visits. We made the people aware of the functions of the beat police officers and the usefulness of house visits" - A senior police officer "The workshop was very intensive, the question raised by any member was to be discussed threadbare and answered properly. The suspicion and apprehensions were to be properly allayed" - A senior police officer "Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years. This has helped ironing out a number of teething problems" - A senior police officer "After few months we could standardize the number of house visits per day in urban and rural areas" - A senior police officer "The Beat Officer has been specially selected by the district Superintendent of Police and other supervisory officers. Traits like communication skill, temperament, integrity etc. are criteria for selecting a beat officer" - A senior police officer "The do’s and don’ts helped us to focus on our objectives" - A community police officer

236

APPENDIX C SO SO SO

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers

Parameter 7: Political Acceptance Key Points: In a parliamentary democracy like India the success of a new public policy is largely incumbent on the political will and consensus. A policy that gets the seal of approval of the opposition political parties is likely to survive the successor- predecessor syndrome. A proposal initiated by the executives should ideally been approved not only by the government of the day but should have the tacit support of the opposition political parties. In Kerala the police leadership had the acumen and foresight to read this political dynamics of policy making. It took all the stake holders on board before launching Janamaithri including the opposition political parties. Political acceptance of the scheme by all political parties including the ruling dispensation made the scheme survive the change of government thrice during the evolution and implementation phase of Janamaithri. Political acceptance is the invaluable bridge between strategy and action. With a strategy in hand, the goal is to implement sustained action by further developing political will. By first developing political acceptance, communities were able to implement appropriate goals from the strategy for a longer duration. Legislative bodies and media activities helped to adopt or renew initiatives, appropriate resources, and shift public opinion which terminated in determining implementation outcomes and guaranteed success. The process involved in getting political acceptance was: The CM and the members of ruling party agreed on the strategy. Members of legislature demanded a discussion on the issue. Identification and motivation of influential champions from Opposition. Opposition entered into debate and dialogue. Hard work of the task force to convince cross sections. Use of media interviews and opinion for political and public acceptance.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "Even a cross section of opposition political parties spread the disinformation that the youth wing of the ruling political party will be delegated policing functions of the state. There was wide scale criticism to the scheme. Finally the Government dropped the idea" - A senior police officer • "It took a sustained and long term campaign to sell the idea to all stake holders including the police hierarchy" - A senior police officer • "In 2004 the Government of Kerala (UDF) appointed Justice K T Thomas Commission to evaluate the performance of policing in Kerala. By the time the Commission submitted its report in the year 2006 the government had been changed. The new government formed by the LDF was keen to implement the recommendations" - A senior police officer • "I met both the Home Minister and then leader of the opposition, who is now the Chief Minister of the state, and discussed with them on the modalities of implementation" – A Senior Police Officer • "After it was informally approved by the government, we took it to all cross sections of opinion makers in the society, the media, literary figures, political leaders, civil society, academia etc" - A senior police officer • "After deciding the police stations we invited the M.L.As /Urban Body Chairpersons having jurisdiction over those Police Stations and conducted a workshop" - A senior police officer • "Draft community policing scheme was prepared by the Kerala Police and submitted to the Government. The draft scheme was circulated among various cross-sections of the society, viz, leaders of different political parties, senior journalists,.. " - A senior police officer

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

237

APPENDIX D FGD TABLE-3/ Focus Group/ IDI Summary Report on Impact Phase Table R1: Focus Group Discussions/ In-depth Interviews: Summary Information Sheet Impact Phase Community and Participants Information Community name/location: Selection criteria: Facilitation No. of participants:

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B.JSS Fort/Thir; C.JSS/VJS, Kochi; D.JSS Kadavanthra, Kochi; E.JSS Irinjalakuda; F.JSS Thrissur East; G.JSS Thrissur West; H. Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs CP Intervention and Supervising Senior Officers Experience Sharing 82 Male and 43 Female

Focus Group Facilitation Information Date of focus group: Gender of facilitator: Recording method (Time Taken):

Remarks

01/04/12 to 5 / 04/12 M/F Note Taking/ Voice record (Minimum 31 Mins to 1hr 40 mins)

1 Month 04 Days Sensitive Transcript prepared

Focus Group Analysis: Preparatory and Reporting Information Review of Literature: Transcript: Inductive Matching: Number of quotes in summary report:

Jan-Mar 2012 June 2012 July 2012 66 quotes

Substantive 1 Month 1 Month Quoted

Explanatory comments on and learning from the process Community selection: Participant selection: FG facilitation and recording: Analysis, scoring, and reporting from FGs:

Other:

All participants are well represented and involved The participant selection was random and snow-ball method of selection is used The facilitation was good & the participation was high. In few cases the participants were very vocal to speak out their success stories For some topics it was difficult to decide which score was the best match as most of the members of CPOs, JSS and VJS were not very vocal and explicit about pre-implementation Phase of CP and hence explanations from qualitative in-depth interview of police officers were analyzed and quoted to make the analysis substantive and context specific. The members of CPOs, JSS and VJS narrated their experiences on implementation and impact phases of CP interventions. Some participants nodded their heads to endorse the views expressed by others.

238

APPENDIX D

Table R 2: Focus Group Summary Score Sheet Participation Score code: Very High=3 High-2, Average-1, Poor-0 Impact Phase Parameter A B C D E F G Bridging the gap between Police and Public Overall Heightened Sense of Security Security for the vulnerable section Police mediation in basic services Empowerment of constabulary Institutionalization Total

Group Code

H

Total

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

3

16

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

23

2

3

3

1

1

3

3

3

19

3

0

3

3

0

0

0

0

09

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

03

0 11

0 08

0 09

0 08

0 06

0 08

0 08

3 15

03 73

A. JSS Cantonment/Thir; B. JSS Fort/Thir; C. JSS/VJS, Kochi; D. JSS Kadavanthra,Kochi; E. JSS Irinjalakuda; F. JSS Thrissur East; G. JSS Thrissur West; H. Senior Officers IDI; and Respective CPOs

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

239

No of Groups/Persons

Table R 3: Focus Group Summary Narrative Report: Selected Sample Key Points, Quotes, & Examples Impact Phase SM Parameter 1: Bridging the Gap between Police and Public

1

SM

SO

SM

SO

SM

SO

CM

SO

CM

SO

CM

SO

2

3

Scores Given CW- Community Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men SO- Senior Officers

Key Points:

As an alternative policing strategy that is adopted worldwide, community policing advocates forging of problem solving partnership between the police and the public. Community policing revolves round the principle of pro-active policing through people friendly policing practices, community participation and problem solving leading to crime prevention and maintenance of order. Community policing allows the law enforcement to get back to the principles upon which it was founded, to integrate itself into the fabric of the community so that the people and the police collaborate even before a serious problem arises. Here, police act as a catalyst in the social engineering experiment.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "We introduced the system of ‘house visit’ by the beat officers in his/her respective beat and ensured that s/he covered all the houses in his beat within a given time frame. The visits and rapport between the residents and the Beat Officer were meant to bridge the gap between the community and the police" - A Senior Police Officer • "In 2011 we solved 98% of the unknown murder cases in Kerala, a figure which is much above the national average. Thanks to the community policing schemes, people now come forward to inform the police on the clues they are privy to. When public feel that they own the legal system, the level of co-operation is very high" - A senior police officer • "Marade, a highly communally sensitive place in Calicut city is a transformed place today, thanks to introduction of community policing in the area since 2006.’- A senior police officer • "We want to operate in an environment where the Beat Officer can enter his Beat without any police force because he will be protected by the majority of the community" - SO • "Similarly, the Merchants’ Association took steps to resist extortion by local anti social element with the help of local police. They also sponsored traffic wardens and signage in their respective areas for orderly parking of the vehicles" - A senior police officer • "The private security personnel responded favourably to our training programme and started giving information on suspicious matter to the local SHO. In fact, they acted like eyes and ears of the police organization" - A senior police officer • "The beat officer also attends all the social functions in our area. He is now part of our community. The beat officer has developed a bond not only with the community leaders but with the common man. Besides the fact that police is just a call’s away created a fear among antisocial and criminals" - A JSS Member • "In our area the incidences of theft and burglary have gone down. Crime reporting has also decreased" - A JSS Member • "In our area there are three working women hostels. Earlier anti-social activities, eve-teasing, and chain snatching were regularly reported from the locality. But, such activities have completely stopped after the JSP" -A JSS Member • "In our area the women and girls go for morning walk without any threat of the chain being snatched. As a former Councilor I feel that the Beat Officer is as popular as a good public representative" - A woman JSS member • "By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS meetings they feel being closer to the police. Their sense of security has gone up. They feel secured when moving in their neighborhood" - a VJS Member • "Earlier people did not reveal any information because they were suspicious of us. Now people have developed confidence on us for which they reveal information to us. The negative image of police in the minds of people has changed. All these things have made our job easier" - CM • "We feel closer to the community and also the community feels the same" - CM • "The crime has reduced in our locality because of alertness of the Beat officers and cooperation of the members of the association. We immediately pass on information to Beat Officers who act an our information with promptness this has created fear among law breakers" - A JSS member

240

APPENDIX D

SW SW SW

No of Groups/Persons

SM SM SM CM

SM

CW

VJS SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CW- Community Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

Parameter 2: Overall Heightened Sense of Security Key Points: Sense of security means a general conscious awareness of protection and safety. Community Policing is expected to increase the sense of security of the common citizen by making police more accessible, pro-active, visible and by removing the veil of anonymity from the face of police. With Janamathri Suraksha Project the residents got an opportunity to closely interact with the beat police officer, know him by name and face and could freely interact with him during house visits. The house visits by the beat officer facilitated the process of familiarity. Residents felt that the police is just a call’s away at the time of need and would definitely respond to their calls. This resulted in a conscious awareness of safety in the neighborhood. People perceived that the crime has gone down, streets have become safer and anti-socials elements are scared of the police.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "Where ever it (community policing) has been tried out, it has given a sense of security to the general public, particularly the women. There has been great effect on prevention of crime though statistics on crime prevention is illusive" - A senior police officer • "The crime has reduced in our locality because of alertness of the Beat officers and cooperation of the members of the association" - A JSS member • "We immediately pass on the information to Beat Officers who act on our information with promptness this has created fear among law breakers. This is the reason for reduction in crime reporting" - A JSS member • "Earlier we were scared of the police and never disclose any relevant information to the police out of the fear and indifference. Things have changed with community policing approach. We treat the police as friend now" - A JSS member • "Besides the fact that police is just a call’s away created a fear among antisocial and criminals" A JSS member • "Earlier anti-social activities, eve-teasing, and chain snatching were regularly reported from the locality. But, such activities have completely stopped after the JSP. The criminals have the fear that police patrol or the beat officers may drop in at any moment in the area" - a JSS member • "By interacting with the CPOs, Police Officers in connection with VJS meetings they feel being closer to the police. Their sense of security has gone up" - A VJS member • "Our sense of security has gone up after introduction of the JSP. The Police have become approachable. Here Police has been proactive" - A woman JSS member • "Beat Officers who act an our information with promptness has created fear among law breakers" - A JSS member • "There has been a perceptible decline in the commission of crimes. We generally go for night patrolling in collaboration with the local Police. This has perhaps resulted in lower reporting of thefts and burglaries" - A JSS member • "Property offences have considerably gone down because of the proactive role of the police" - A JSS member • "Besides the community police officers maintain close rapport with the residents of their Beats. This has eased the access to police as a result of which information flows from either side. People feel that police is sensitive to their requirements" - A JSS member • "I can give you an example –If you go to our area, you will find that old couples, senior citizens and women are going for morning walk early in the morning even before the day light. People in the street feel secure" - A JSS member • "We feel that the crime has gone down and our sense of security has gone up" - A JSS member • "Criminal activities, alcoholism and domestic violence are in the decline in our area.- A JSS member • "Antisocial activities and crimes are on the decline as people inform the Police on any untoward incidence" - A female JSS member • "Police is now accessible and sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood" - A JSS member • "House visits by the Beat Officers have made all the differences" - A JSS member • "The residents of our beat have access to our phone numbers and are at liberty to disturb us at any moment" - A Woman CPO • "The beat officers of the Police Station visit each and every house. By such visit he is in know of things happening around in the locality" - A JSS member. • "In our area the women and girls go for morning walk without any fear of the chain being snatched" - A woman JSS member

COMMUNITY POLICING CM CM SM

No of Groups/Persons

SM SM SM CM

VJS

CM

CW

SO

1

2

3

SM

Scores Given SW- Samiti Women, CWCommunity Police Women, SM-Samiti Men, CM-Community Police Men VJS-Vanita Jagaran Samiti SO- Senior Officers

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

241

Parameter 3: Security for the Vulnerable Section Key Points: Vulnerable people are those exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally, like the senior citizens without family support, women, children, destitute etc. The state is duty bound to take care and protect those who are vulnerable. Police as the strong arm of the government is legally mandated to ensure the protection of the vulnerable section of the society. But in the scheme of traditional policing the police reacts only after the exploitation of the vulnerability of such category of citizens by the offenders. The vulnerable class continues to remain in a state of perpetual fear as the psychological need of security is not addressed by post-occurrence intervention by the law enforcing agency. In contrast, the Janamaithri Suraksha Project advocated pro-active engagement of the community police officer with the senior citizens, women, students, destitute, slum dwellers etc. of the area so that their sense of security is improved. The students through a programme called, Student Police Cadet, are being groomed to be responsible citizens of the future. Some of the issues like domestic violence, alcoholic abuse etc. are resolved by the beat police officers as alternative dispute redressal mechanism. Police in return has earned the much needed respect, good will and trust of the people making its job easier.

Notable Quotes & Examples: • "In addition the Police are held with high esteem among the public for its pro-poor schemes for destitute, women and juvenile delinquent" - A JSS member • "…… with introduction of Student Police Cadet scheme & with the help of the Police we will create good citizenry in future which will help reduce the crime in the long run" - A JSS member • "In addition to the Janamaithri, the Kerala Police has taken up few more schemes like student police cadet, senior citizen and women related activities" - A JSS member • "During house visit the Police have sorted out the problem of senior citizens who are not looked after by their family members" - A JSS member • "Police helps involving us in its charitable activities like-distribution of books to the poor students, arranging shelter for the homeless, helping senior and elderly citizen etc." - SM • "The police has taken up a number of welfare schemes including helping the destitute and sick people. The police now shares the happiness, sorrow and distress of the people" - SM • "The Beat Officer in my locality resolved domestic problems of couple of families where the husbands were abusing and harassing of the wives after consumption of alcohol" - A female JSS member • "There are about 50 senior citizens residing under the police station limit. These senior citizens live without any support from the younger members of the family. Therefore, we attach more importance to these households and increase the frequency of the visits" - A CPO • "In addition to house visit we have taken up special programmes for senior citizens, women, destitute and poor people. These special schemes have earned lot of goodwill to the Police organization" - A woman CRO • "I have a list of senior citizens without family or dependent members to look after them.’- A CPO • ‘Helping juvenile delinquents, destitute women and charity are the main activities VJS. Sometimes they invite professional councilors to offer counsel to estranged couples" - A VJS member • "The exclusive programs for the senior citizens without any close family members to take care have earned the police a special place in the hearts of the residents" - A JSS member • "In other instances the children of senior citizens, who stay abroad have come to express their gratitude to be Beat Officers for the house visits, thereby enhancing the sense of security to their aged parents" - A senior police officer • "We have maintained a senior citizens’ directory wherein the name, address and contact details of the senior citizens are available" - A CPO • "The Student Police Cadet initiative is aimed at fostering democratic values among the young students. The young citizen, here the students, must learn to respect the law" - SO

242

APPENDIX D Theme 4: Police Mediation in Availing Basic Services

No of Groups/Persons

Key Points:

CW

A beat police officer by close interaction with residents of his Beat not only earns their good will and trust but is perceived as the visible representative of the state in addition to the common adage of being the strong arm. Residents of the Beat during their interaction bring various non-police related issues to the notice of the Beat Officer, for example, lack of civic amenities like non-availability of street lights in the locality, irregular supply of drinking water, problems of solid waste management etc. The Beat officer intervenes in such instances as they believe that lack of the basic civic amenities and dumping of waste in a locality has the potential to lead to law and order situation. Besides, they want to win the goodwill and trust of the residents they serve, thereby developing a symbiotic relationship with the residents.

CW

Notable Quotes & Examples:

3

•

SM

1

2

Scores Given • SM-Samiti Men, CW-Community Police Women •

"Not only instances of crime were brought to our notice, but also instances of

lack of civic amenities. At appropriate instances we bring such problems to the notice of the concerned department" - A woman CPO "We have faced a problem recently with regard to dumping of waste of the city near their locality. This was creating unhygienic atmosphere in the area. In several instances they protested and hesitated over the matter but was of no avail. However, after the intervention of the beat officer the matter has been resolved temporarily" - A JSS member ̶—”‹‰ ‹–”‘†—…–‹‘ ™‹–Š ‡„‡”• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡•‹†‡–•ǯ ••‘…‹ƒ–‹‘ ƒ —„‡” ‘ˆ ’”‘„Ž‡• ‘ˆ ‘–Š‡” †‡’ƒ”–‡–• ƒ”‡ ƒŽ•‘ „”‘—‰Š– –‘ ‘—” ‘–‹…‡Ǥ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ”‡’Žƒ…‡‡–‘ˆ•–”‡‡–Ž‹‰Š–ǡ†”‹‹‰™ƒ–‡”•—’’Ž› ‡–…Ǥ ‘‡–‹‡• ™‡ –ƒ‡ —’ –Š‡ ƒ––‡” ™‹–Š –Š‡ …‘…‡”‡† †‡’ƒ”–‡– ƒ† ‰‡– –Š‡ Œ‘„ †‘‡Ǥ  › †‘‹‰ •—…Š ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǡ ™‡ ƒŽ•‘ ‰ƒ‹‰‘‘†™‹ŽŽ‘ˆ–Š‡’—„Ž‹…̶ Ǧ™‘ƒ

COMMUNITY POLICING CW

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

243

Parameter 5: Empowerment of Constabulary

No of Groups/Persons

CW CW

Key Points:

CM

Empowerment is a management practice of sharing information, rewards, and power with employees so that they can take initiative and make decisions to solve problems and improve service and performance. Empowerment is based on the idea that giving employees skills, resources, authority, opportunity, motivation as well holding them responsible and accountable for the outcomes of their actions will contribute to their competence and satisfaction. The Beat Officers under Janamaithri scheme are mostly from the ranks of Constable and Head Constable. They comprise the bottom of the police hierarchy, suffer from low motivation, lack initiatives and are never been part of the decision making process. Janamathri provided the opportunity to the Beat Officers the much needed visibility, recognition, respect and self-esteem and in the process empowered the constabulary.

SO SO SO

1

2

3

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers CM- Community Police Men, CW-Community Police Women

Notable Quotes & Examples: • • • • • • • • •

"My workload has increased but I am happy for the respect I command from the public now" - A CPO "I command a lot of respect in my area as an Asst Beat Officer which I never experienced before" - A woman CPO "I feel good about my job as a community police officer. People respect me in my new role" - A CPO "People hold us in high esteem. We have a sense of satisfaction having been in this department" - A Woman CPO "As regards police sub-culture, the beat officers who are mostly from the

ranks of constable and head constables, have developed self-esteem and pride in his job" - A senior police officer "The scheme has empowered the constabulary and would benefit the organizational culture in the long run" - A senior police officer "Having enjoyed the public trust and appreciation, the self esteem of the Beat Officers have also enhanced to the advantage of the organization" - A senior police officer "I have lot of public contacts. I get the respect of the public and enjoy my job" - A CRO "The community police officers, mostly in the rank of constable and head constable, enjoy the public confidence and trust" - SO

244

APPENDIX D

No of Groups/Persons

SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO

1

2 3

Scores Given SO- Senior Officers

Parameter 6: Institutionalization Key Point: Institutionalization is a process which translates an organization’s mission, policies, vision and strategic plans into action guidelines applicable to the daily activities of its officers and employees. It aims at integrating fundamental values and objectives into the organization’s culture and structure. Janamaithri Suraksha Project culminated as a flagship community policing scheme of Kerala Police after almost after a decade long committed efforts of the police leadership. Starting from enlisting political consensus for the scheme to publication of Government Order and finally making legal provision in the new Kerala Police Act, the process of institutionalization has been an ongoing process. Uniform and centralized training programme for the Beat Officers, appointment of a state level Nodal Officer, budgetary provision, publication of standard operating procedure in shape of Police Circular Order and increase in the sanctioned strength of the staff in Janamaithri police stations are some of the processes to institutionalize the scheme in the State. Notable Quotes & Examples: • "Yes, we have published the community policing strategies, the Janamaithri Surashka Project in form of the Government Orders by the state government. Besides, we have provisions in the newly legislated Kerala Police Act on community policing (Sec 64 & 65)" - A senior police officer • "We have redefined the functions of the police in the Kerala Police Act, making it them more in sync with the objectives of the community policing, e.g., ‘to instill a sense of security among people in general’, ‘to provide all reasonable help to persons affected by natural or man-made disaster, calamity or accident" A senior police officer • "For the last five financial years we have been receiving budgetary allocation for JSP under Plan fund. As the community policing has been legally mandated as per the provision of the Kerala Police Act, the budgetary allocation would be part of police budget under non-plan scheme" - A senior Police Officer • ‘Government have increased the sanctioned strength of each (Janamaithri) police station by five" - A senior police officer • "At the end of the meeting there was consensus that such a scheme should be implemented in the State under the banner Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP)" A senior police officer • "However, with the institutional support and constant monitoring by the State Level Nodal Officer and the availability of government fund under the Janamaithri Suraksha Project, who ever be the successor, has to continue with the scheme" - A senior police officer • "On the recommendation of the DGP, the State Government notified me as the State Level Nodal Officer for the (JSP) Janamaithri Suraksha Project, since 2007. Irrespective of my official posting I have been continuing as the Nodal Officer for the last five years" - A senior police officer • "Budgetary provision for Janamaithri Suraksha Project, Government Orders publishing the standard operating procedures and the centralized training modules for the Community Police Officers are some of the institutional arrangements to sustain the Project" – A senior Police Officer • "Now sanction of additional post have been accorded by the Government for this purpose at a rate of five extra manpower per police station i.e. 4 (four) male Police Officers and 1(one) female police officers"- A senior police officer

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

245

APPENDIX E REPORT OF THE KERALA POLICE PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION Constitution of the Committee 1.01 The Police Performance and Accountability Commission was constituted by the Government of Kerala as per G.O. (Ms) No.246/2003/ Home dtd.18/11/03 to evaluate the general performance of the police during the years 2002 and 2003 and to examine the effectiveness of the autonomy given to the police in recent times its merits and demerits and to make recommendations for further improving the functioning and accountability of the police. The Commission consisted of the following :Hon.ble Justice K.T.Thomas - Chairman of the Commission (Former Judge of the Supreme Court) Shri K.V. Rajagopalan Nair, IPS (Retd) - Member (Former Director General of Police, Kerala) Shri T.N. Jayachandran, IAS (Retd) - Member (Former Vice Chancellor, Calicut University and Addl. Chief Secretary (Retd) ××× ××× ×××

CHAPTER IV RAISON D’ETRE OF THE CONCLUSIONS 4.32 To make Community Policing more meaningful and purposeful with the ultimate object of preventing crimes police will have to mobilize the resources of the community. It is understood that in many cities of the United States civilians are actively involved in intercepting and spotting criminal behaviour. The Drivers of Radio equipped taxies, delivery vans

246

APPENDIX E

and telephone repair vehicles are sometimes trained to spot criminal activities and notified to the police. Volunteers wearing distinctive caps and Arm bands patrol areas where criminal activities are likely to take place. It is true that mobilization of community support in India for assisting the police is not going to be easy in view of the alienation of the police from the community. But against the backdrop of growing crimes and disorders the public will come forward to help the police only when the police are able to convince the public that they are genuinely interested in helping them and the public can repose confidence in them. Community Policing has three core components, complementary to each other: (I) police recognizing the value of community partnership (as also partnership with other public and private sector resources) (ii) police identifying specific concerns of the community which should become priorities for work, (iii) achieving the above two would necessitate changes in the mindset and organizational set up of the police. 4.33 To succeed in this partnership, the police personnel are required to work from a place closer to the neighbourhood and not from a remote police station. Typically, this closeness has to be achieved by regular ‘beat’ officers (foot patrols), who are posted in a locality, for sufficiently long time or through the establishment of neighbourhood police posts. The Officer is required to learn the characteristics of the area, residents, business, become acquainted with leaders of the area, identify problems of the area, plan ways of dealing with the problem, provide citizens information about ways they can handle problems, help citizens develop appropriate expectations about what police can do and teach them how to effectively interact with police, develop resources for responding to problems, implement the solution and assess the effectiveness of the solution. The officer is required to build lasting relations with the community over a period of time through schools, neighbourhood watch committees, grass root organizations and media. From the Community Policing perspective, a city is viewed not as one homogenous entity, but consisting of many neighbourhoods each with its own characteristics, problems and service needs. The crime patterns may be different in each neighbourhood and the causes of such crime again may be different in each area. Through the interactions, the police officer is required to tap the unused resources of the people. Thus, the police expertise and Community resources are applied to solve the root causes of crime that threaten the welfare of the community. 4.34 In India several States like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir have made sporadic efforts to experiment on Community Policing.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

247

While these initiatives on police public relations involving the local community is likely to make the police more acceptable among the public, efforts will have to be made to get the co-operation of the community at large in maintenance of law and order and preventing crimes. 4.35 State Police Manual should incorporate a chapter on Community Policing explaining clearly the rationale of the approach, the type of programmes that can be taken up, the preparatory work that is required, the implementation details and the techniques of evaluation of the results. Booklets containing these details can be brought out for public distribution. State Government can issue orders which would enable the innovative amongst the police officers to launch such programmes. The fund requirements for these initiatives should be assessed and placed at the disposal of the concerned officers. While the State Governments should issue ‘enabling orders’, there should be no insistence on implementation of ‘Community Policing. on a routine basis all over the State. It should also be clearly understood that Community Policing takes time to take roots, and its results are not clearly identifiable over a short period. Hence, the tendency to give up the project half-way-through needs to be resisted. The ‘Director General’ should designate a Senior Officer from his office well trained in ‘Community Policing. as Chief Co-ordinator for this Project. Due recognition should be given to those officers who take innovative initiatives and persist with those. It is suggested that the Government in consultation with the Director General of Police may bring out an ‘Operation Hand Book On Community Policing’ for the guidance of District Police to bring about a certain degree of uniformity in approach by individual Superintendents of Police. …

248

APPENDIX F GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ABSTRACT Home Department: Working Group on Plan Schemes of Police Department for 2007-08 Community Policing Scheme – Administrative Sanction accorded- Orders issued.

Home (E) Department G.o. (Rt.) No. 3161/2007/Home Dated, Thiruvananthapuram 23.11.2007. Read: - 1) Letter No. 34577/2007, dated 20.09.2007 from the Director General of Police Thiruvananthapuram. 2) Minutes of the working Group Meeting held on 15.10.2007 at the Chamber of Additional Chief Secretary, (Home & Vigilance) Department.

ORDER ‘Community Policing’ is both a way of thinking and an organizational strategy that allows the Police and Community to work closely together in creative ways to solve the problems of Crime, illicit drugs, fear of Crime physical and social disorder (from graffiti to addiction) neighbourhood degeneration and the overall quality of life in the community. The philosophy of Community policing rests on the brief that people deserve input into the police process, in exchange for their participation and support. The Director General of Police vide his letter read as first paper above has furnished a detailed proposal for Administrative Sanction under the Annual Plan 2007-08. The Working Group which met on 15.10.2007 discussed the proposal in detail and observed that he community policing would minimize the gap between Policemen and citizens and to such an extent that the Policeman became an integrated part of the community they serve. The individual Policemen should know each member of the community and he should in turn be known to them. Such a relationship is vital for the development of their abilities and initiatives to solve problems of crime and social disorder. Police Department has furnished a proposal to the tune of Rs. 5.6 lakhs for the procurement of Publicity material. After discussion, the working

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

249

group agreed to limit the amount to Rs. 3.5 Lakhs i.e. 2.00 Lakhs for procuring pamphlets and Rs. 1.5 Lakhs for booklets. The booklets may contain successful stories and best practices from other states also. Police Department also presented a proposal for conducting District level Seminars and workshops on community Policing and Police interface. The working Group meeting agreed to the proposal conduct seminars and workshops in 10 selected districts as a first step viz, Thiruvanthapuram, Ernakulam, Kozhikode, Thrissur, Kannur, Kollam, Kottayam, Palakkad, Alappuzha and Kasargod. An amount of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs is approved for this purpose. The Working Group meeting has also agreed to conduct the training programme for the community Liaison Groups in 10 districts in the first phase at a total cost of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. In the above circumstances Administrative Sanction is accorded to execute the Community Policing Scheme for a total amount of Rs. 10.5 lakhs as detailed below. a) Publicity Materials Pamphlets Rs. 2.00 Lakhs (Rupees two Lakhs) Booklets Rs. 1.5 Lakhs (Rupees one lakhs fifty thousand only) b) Seminar and Workshop Seminars/Workshops at Thiruvanthapuram Rs. 5.00 Lakhs Ernakula, Kozhikode, Thrissur, Kanur (Rupees five lakhs) Kollam, Kottayam, Palakkad, Alappuzha and Kasargode c) Training the Community Liaison Groups (CLGS) Rs. 2.00 Lakhs 17 Training sessions lasting 3-5 days in 17 Police(Rupees Two lakhs) Districts (CLGS) Total Rs. 10.5 Lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs fifty thousand only) The above expenditure will be met from the lead of account “2055-Police00-800-84 MoPF”. By order of the Governor K.J. MATHEW Additional Chief Secretary to Government

250

APPENDIX G COMMUNITY POLICING IN NEW KERALA POLICE ACT OF 2011 Government of Kerala Reg. No. KL/TV(N)/12/2009-2011 KERALA Gazette EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Vol. LVI

Thiruvananthapurum, 20th April 2011 No. 896 Wednesday

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Law (Legislation-E) Department NOTIFICATION No. 4448/Leg. E1/2011/Law. Dated Thiruvananthapurum

20th April, 2011

In pursuance of clause (3) of article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to authorize the publication in the Gazette of the following translation in English language of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (8 of 2011). By order of the Governor, M.MADHUSUDANAN NAIR, Special Secretary (Law) ××× ××× ××× 64. Community Policing- (1) The District Police Chief shall constitute Community Contact Committees for each police station, comprising the local residents of the area as representatives of the community, to give general assistance to the Police in the discharge of their duty. (2) The Community Contact Committees shall have a fair representation of all categories of the society including persons from service and professional sectors, women and persons belonging to SC/ST communities under the jurisdiction of the police station.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

251

(3) No person who had been sentenced to imprisonment by a criminal court or who had been dismissed, removed, discharged or compulsorily retired from any employment on grounds of corruption, moral turpitude or misconduct in the previous five years shall be nominated as a member of the Community Contact Committee. (4) The Community Contact Committee shall identify the existing and emerging needs for Police services of common nature in the area which needs due consideration by police and also to develop action plans for ensuring the security of the area or any part thereof. (5) The Community Contact Committee shall meet as may be required. (6) The general public of that area may participate in the meeting of the Committee. (7) The Community Contact Committee shall encourage every citizen to bring to the notice of the police information about the offences happened and the possibility for the occurrence of offences. (8) The Community Contact Committee may form sub-committees for any specific purpose or for particular areas of for the specific functions. (9) The Community Contact Committee may formulate programmes for promoting security awareness, safety awareness, prevention of crimes and legal literacy etc. (10) Community Contact Committee shall not undertake themselves any lawful authority of Police force such as investigation of crimes or maintenance of law and order. 65. Service of Beat Police(1) The area of jurisdictions of every police station shall be divided into various beats and sufficient beat patrols shall be provided to each beat area for beat patrols on permanent basis. (2)The following matters shall be the duties and responsibilities of the beat patrols along with other matters. (a) Keep contact with the members residing in the Community Contact Committee area and the citizens who have active participation in community life; (b) review during every visit the steps to prevent offences in the beat area; (c) collect information in respect of criminals, terrorists and anti-social elements, if any, in the area and communicate the same to the officer in charge of the police station; (d) observe the criminals subjected to special observation, if any, in the beat area and those having criminal background and those with bad character;

252

APPENDIX G

(e) understand about the local disputes having a chance for violence and inform all the available details to the officer-in-charge of the police station; (f) carry out any other police task in respect of the area entrusted by the supervising officers; (g) inform the officer in charge of the police station, in writing, about the grievances and complaints from the general public in respect of Police service and (h) maintain a record of the works performed during the time of visit and submit the same to the officer-in-charge of the police station.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

253

APPENDIX H Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram – 10 CIRCULAR No.35/2009

Dt : 21.08.2009

Sub : - Janamithri Suraksha Project of Kerala Police – Guidelines prepared for administration – reg:Ref : - PHQ Circular No. 34/2009 Dt: 20.08.2009 For the effective implementation of the Janamaithri Suraksha Project following guidelines are issued for strict compliance by the officers and superiors of the stations where the project is implemented. 1. A local area which includes around 1000 houses may be considered as a Janamaithri Beat. A Police Station Jurisdiction may be divided into as many ‘Janamaithri Beat’ as required. One beat area should not exceed three to five square kilometers. 2. One Addl.SI/ASI should be posted as Community Relations Officer. An ASI/HC should be posted as in charge of each ‘Janamaithri Beat’ The SHO should depute a woman Police Constable (Assistant Beat Officer) also to assist the ‘Beat Officer’. 3. The posted Beat Officer, Community Relations Officer, SHO of Police Station, Circle Inspector and DySP should be trained personnel of the Janamaithri Project. 4. A Beat Officer should be a role model to any one as far as his manners, etiquettes and character are concerned. Only such personnel should be selected as Beat Officers. 5. As and when any objectionable act is noticed from the part of Beat Officer it should be reported. If any laxity to report the same is noticed, action should be initiated against the concerned SHO by the District Superintendent of Police. 6. The station duties in the beat area like process service, checking of address, handling of complaints in complaint boxes and night patrol etc. can also be done through the Beat Officers. Besides the Beat Officer can be detailed to other station duties whenever necessary but ensuring that the Beat Officer has also been deputed to the beat duty for three days a week. 7. As and when any laxity or dereliction in implementing the Janamaithri Suraksha Project is noticed from the part of any Station House Officer

254

APPENDIX H

of Police Station or Circle Inspector, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police/District Superintend of Police /Commissioner of Police should intimate this fact to the superiors including Director General of Police in time and take further steps. 8. The District Police Superintendent should conduct a special training course for the selected Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi members. 9. The Beat Officers performing well should be recognized and rewarded suitably. Special attention of DSP /CP and Range IGP should be applied in this case. 10. As and when vacancy arise at the Police Station in which Janamaithri Suraksha Project is implemented, it should be filled urgently and additional strength should also be posted. The special attention of District Police Superintendent should apply in this case. 11. Janamaithri Suraksha Project training should be given to all other Police personnel of Police Station where the Janamaithri Suraksha Project is implemented. 12. Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi has to be formed in the Police Station for the implementation of the project. It is the responsibility of the Samithy to implement the Janamaithri Suraksha Project in the jurisdiction of that Police Station. The Samithi should be reconstituted within two years. The Circle Inspector and Station House Officer are Convener and the Secretary of the Samithi respectively. Besides a Sub-Inspector / Assistant Sub-Inspector will perform as Community Relations Officer. Samithi meeting should be convened once a month. The Samithi does not have any statutory power. If any member of Samithi is involved in any crime or bad conduct, the Station House Officer should inform the fact to the District Superintendent of Police /Commissioner of Police urgently and such member should be expelled from the Samithi. 13. The District Police Superintendents should pay special attention in ensuring that crime rate is reduced in the Project Police Station and neighbouring areas. The complaints like neighbouring areas became more crime prone due to police concentration on the project area should be avoided. 14. The Beat Officers, Assistant Beat Officers and Community Relations Officer and Station House Officer should not be transferred except when it is found that they are indulging in misconduct and the Beat Officers require urgent transfer after completing at least two years. The prior sanction of DGP should be obtained in such special cases. 15. Concerned Circle Inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police should strictly observe the performance of the Station where the Janamaithri

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

255

Suraksha Project is implemented and they should attend the Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi Meetings as far as possible. 16. The monthly work done report should be prepared and forwarded to the Nodal Officer so as to reach on or before 10th of every succeeding month. This report should be sent with special remarks of District Superintendent of Police /Commissioner of Police. In cases where at least three beats within one week cannot be provided, the reason for the same should be specified in the working report. It is the responsibility of the District Superintendent of Police /Commissioner of Police to avoid such instances. 17. It is the responsibility of District Superintendent of Police /Commissioner of Police to ensure that the allotted money from Plan fund or other Govt. funds are utilized fully for the actual purpose. The review report should contain the actual utilization of these funds and the nature of work conducted. 18. The motor cycle allotted for the beat duty should be maintained so as to use it on a daily basis and steps should also be taken to avail the sanctioned fuel. 19. During the time of inspection the superior officers (of and above the rank of CI) should verify the beat register and record suggestions while they visit / inspect the Station. 20. District Advisory Samithi:- At the District level, an Advisory Committee headed by the District Police Superintendent should be formed to ensure proper supervision regarding the functioning of Janamaithri Suraksha Project. Member of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Municipal Chairman, Mayor as well as other important personalities nominated by Superintendent of Police may be included in the Committee. The committee may consist of 10 to 20 members. This committee may convene meeting once in three months and review the working of Janamaithri Suraksha Samithies of the concerned District and give necessary suggestions, instructions etc. for improvement of their performance. The District Police Superintendents should ensure that the instructions are strictly complied with. The project helps to reduce the crimes and ensures proper handling of law and order. Hence the argument, that due to the law and order issues, the implementation of the project is difficult is baseless. It is the duty of the District Police Superintendents /Commissioners of Police / Range IGPs, Zonal ADGPs to clearly understand the endeavor of these instructions and ensure the successful implementation of the Janamaithri Project. Director General of Police

256

REFERENCES Adams, Richard E. et. al., (2002) Implementing Community-Oriented Policing: Organizational Change and Street Officer Attitudes. Crime and Delinquency 48:399-430. Alderson, J. (1981). The Case for Community Policing, Submission to Lord Scarman’s Inquiry, Part II. Alexander, N. (1995). Community-based policing does not prevent crime. In: P.A. Winters (Ed.), Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints, San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Allison, Graham (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1ed. Little Brown, Boston MA. Alpert, G.P. & Dunham, R.G. (1993). Community policing. In: R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed., Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. Anderson J (2006) Community Policing: Working Together to Prevent Crime, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Austin, John, (1995) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, W. Rumble (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ayyar RVV (2011) Public Policymaking in India, Pearsons, New Delhi. Baker, W.W. (1995). Horseplay brings officers closer to community. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 64 (1), 6-7. Banton, Michael. 1964. The Policeman in the Community. London: Tavistock. Basu Banibrata (2005) Law Enforcement and the Child-The Kolkata experience, The Indian Police Journal, The Indian Police, Vol L II No. 4 Pp18-24. Bayley, D.H. (1988). Community policing: a report from the devil’s advocate. In: J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, New York: Praeger Publishers Bayley, D.H. (1994). A blueprint for the future of the police. Criminology Australia, 6 (1), 2- 7. Bayley, David H (2005) Community Policing: The doctrine, Paper for the Police Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations. Benamati, D., et.al (1998) Criminal Justice Information: How To Find It, How To Use It. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

257

Bittner, E. (1975), The Impact of Police-Community Relations on the Police System. Community Relations and the Administration of Justice, ed. Geary, D., P. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975. Bittner, Egon (1980) The Functions of Police in Modern Society in Richard J. Lundman, Police Behavior, Oxford University Press, pp. 28-41, at p. 38. Bittner, Egon. 1970. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. Chevy Chase, MD: National Institute of Mental Health. Black, Donald (1968) The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. Revised edition San Diego: Academic Press. Boba Rachel (2003) Problem Analysis in Policing, Police Foundation, Washington, DC. Bobinsky, R. (1994). Reflections on Community-Oriented Policing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63(3), 15-19. Boydstun JE and M E Sherry (1975) San Diego Community Profile: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation. Braga, Anthony A. (2003) Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press). Breen, M.D. (1997). July/August. A reality test for community policing. Law Enforcement News. Brito, Carlos (2010) Strategic Community Policing in Brazil, Paper presented in the 3 rd ECPR Graduate Conference, Dublin City University, 30 Aug-1st Sept. Brogden, M (2005) Horses for Courses and Thin Blue Lines: Community Policing in Transnational Society, Police Quarterly, 8(1) pp 64-98. Brogden, M and P Nijhar (2005) Community Policing: National and International Models and Approaches, Willan Pub. Brookes, S., (2006) ‘Community Policing in Context’, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol 8, No 2, pp 104-117. Brooks, Stephen, (1989) Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction, McClelland and Stewart Inc., Toronto, Ontario. Brown, D. & Iles, S. (1985). Community Constables: A Study of a Policing Initiative (Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper, No. 30), London: HMSO. Brown, L., and M. Wycoff (1987). “Policing Houston: Reducing Fear and Improving Service.” Crime and Delinquency 33(1):71–89. Brown, L.P. (1989). Community policing: a practical guide for police officials. Perspectives on Policing, 12, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

258

REFERENCES

Brown, L.P. (1992). Violent crime and community involvement, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61(5), 2-5. Bryett, K. & Harrison, A. (1993). Policing in the Community. An Introduction to Policing in Australia Series, 3. Sydney: Butterworths. Bucqueroux, B., (2004) ‘Community Policing in the Years Ahead: And Now for the Really Hard Part’ in Community Policing: The Past, Present, and Future, eds L Fridell and M Wycoff, Police Executive Research Forum: Washington, pp 73-82 Bucqueroux, B., (2007) What Community policing teaches us about Community Criminal Justice, http://www.policing.com/articles/pdf/ ccj.pdf. Buerger, M.E. (1993). The challenge of reinventing police and community. In: D. Weisburd and C. Uchida (Eds.), Police Innovation and Control of the Police: Problems of Law, Order, and Community. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993) A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, USA. Cameron, M. & Laycock, G. (2002) “Crime Prevention in Australia” in A. Graycar & P.Grabosky (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Carlos Brito, ‘Strategic Community Policing in Brazil’, Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research) Graduate Conference, Dublin City University, Public Policy. Panel Title: Theoretical Policy Analysis. 31 August 2010, Chappell A T and L Lanza-Kaduce (2004) Integrating Sociological Research and Theory with Community-Oriented Policing: Bridging the Gap between Academics and Practice, Journal of Applied Social Science, September 21, vol. os-21 no. 2 pp. 80-98 Choudhary Rohit (2009) Policing: Reinvention Strategies in a Marketing Framework, New Delhi, Sage. CHRI, (2011) Community Policing in India, CHRI, New Delhi. Chriss James J. (2013a) Beyond Community Policing: From Early American Beginnings to the 21st Century, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO 80303, USA. Chriss, James J. (2013b). Social Control: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Clarke, R V and P A. Schultze (2005), Researching a Problem, Problem-Solving Tools Series, Guide No. 2, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

259

Clarke, R. V and J. Eck (2003). Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London. (Accessible at: www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk). Clarke, Ronald V (1993).Crime Prevention Studies, Criminal Justice Press. Clarke, Ronald V (1997) (Ed) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Second Edition, Harrow and Heston. Coquilhat Jenny (2008) Community Policing: An International Literature Review, New Zealand Police, Wellington. Cordner, G., (2007a) The Key Elements of Oriented Community Policing, Regional Community Policing Institute: Colorado. Cordner, G. (1999) ‘Elements of Community Policing’ in Policing Perspectives: An Anthology, eds. L. Gaines and G. Cordner, Roxbury Publishing Company: Los Angeles, pp137-149. Cordner, G. (2007b) Community Policing: Principles and Elements, Regional Community Policing Institute: Eastern Kentucky University. Cordner, G. and Perkins, E., (2005) ‘Problem-oriented policing in practice’, Criminology and Public Policy, Vol 4, No 2, pp155-180. Cox, J.F. (1992).Small departments and community policing, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61 (12), 1-5. Cumming, Elaine , et.al, (1965)”Policeman as Philosopher, Guide and Friend, Social Problems, Vol. 12 (3): 276-286. Cutcliffe, M. (1994). Community policing and residential traffic control. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63 (8), 12-14. Cyril D. Robinson and R Scaglion, (1987) “The Origin and Evolution of the Police Function in Society: Notes Toward A Theory,” Law & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1. Daneke, G A. and A W Steiss, (1978) “Planning and Policy Analysis for Public Administrators,” in John W. Sutherland (ed.), Management Handbook for Public Administrators, Van Nostrand and Reinhold Company, New York. Das, Dilip K. and Arvind Verma. 2003. Police Mission: Challenges and Responses. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Department of Justice, (2007) Award winning community policing strategies- A report for ICAP, COPS, US Department of Justice. Dhillon KS (1998) Defenders of the Establishment, Shimla, Institute of Advanced Studies. Diamond, D and D M Weiss,(2010) Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document, Department of Community Oriented Policing Services, U. S. Department of Justice.

260

REFERENCES

Diamond,D and D M Weiss,(2009) Community Policing: Looking to Tomorrow. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Police Services. Dodd JD, M Buchanan, M Chaperlin, D Crossman and J Oram, (1997) Moving Beyond Hope: Consumers & Communities in Policy Development, Population and Public Health Branch, Atlantic Regional Office, Health Canada, Halifax, Canadian Public Health Association Conference, July. Dye, T R., (1972) Understanding Public Policy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Eck John E. (1993) Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). Eck, J.E. (1993). Alternative futures for policing, In: Weisburd D. & Uchida C. (Eds.). Police Innovation and Control of the Police: Problems of Law, Order, and Community. New York: Springer-Verlag. Eck, John and Dennis Rosembaum. (1994). “The New Police Order: Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community Policing,” in Rosembaum, Dennis, ed. The Challenge of Community Policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eck, John E. and Nancy G. LaVigne (1994) Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers, Second Edition, Police Executive Research Forum. Eck, John E. and William Spelman. (1987) Problem Solving: Problem Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Edwards, C. (1999) Changing Police Theories for 21st Century Societies Sydney: Federation Press. Ejiogu, Kinsley U, (2010) Community Policing: International Patterns and Comparative Perspectives, African Journal of Criminology & Justice Studies: Volume 4, No.1, pp 141-48. Ellison, G. (2007) Fostering a Dependency Culture: The Commodification of Community Policing in the Global Marketplace in Goldsmith, A. and Sheptycki, J. (Eds.) Crafting Transnational Policing. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Ericson, R.V., Haggerty, K.D., & Carriere, K.D. (1993). Community policing as communications policing. In: Dolling, D. & Feltes, T.(Eds.). Community Policing: Comparative Aspects of Community Oriented Police Work, (Band 5). Holzkirchen, Germany: Felix Verlag.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

261

Felson, M and R V Clarke (1998) Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory, For Crime Prevention, Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98. Fielding, N. and Innes, M., (2006) ‘Reassurance Policing, Community Policing and Measuring Police Performance’, in Policing and Society, Vol 16, No 2, pp 127-145. Fischer, Frank (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, OUP, Oxford. Frederich, Carl J., (1963) Man and his Government, McGraw Hill, New York. Fridell, L. (2004) The results of three national surveys on community policing. In L. Fridell & M. A. Wycoff (Eds), Community policing: Past, present, and future (pp. 39-58). Washington, DC: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Friedmann, R.R. (1992). Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and Prospects. Hemel:: Harvester Whaetsheaf. Galbraith, John Kenneth, (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Gigerenzer, Gerd; Selten, Reinhard (2001) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, UK. Goldstein, Herman (1990) Problem-Oriented Policing, McGraw-Hill, and Temple University Press. Gramckow, H. & Jacoby, J. (1993), Community policing: a model for local governments. In D. Dolling and T. Feltes (Eds.). Community Policing: Comparative Aspects of Community Oriented Police Work, (Band 5), Holzkirchen, Germany: Felix Verlag. Greene, J.R. & Taylor, R.B. (1988). Community-based policing and foot patrol: issues of theory and evaluation. In: J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger Publishers. Greene, J.R. (1993). Civic accountability and the police: lessons learned from police and community relations. In: R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (Eds.). Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed., Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. Greene, Jack R (2000)Community Policing in America: Changing nature, structure and function of police, National Institute of Justice, Rockville, MD. Harvey, B. (1999) Getting recruits on board through enhanced field training. Community Policing Exchange, 6(25): 1, 4.

262

REFERENCES

Hennink, M, I Hutter and A Bailey (2011) Qualitative Research Methods, Sage, London. Home Department, Govt. of Kerala and The Research Institute, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kochi (June 2010), Study report of The Influence of Janamaithri Suraksha Project on Communities. Home Office UK (2004) Building communities, beating crime. London: Home Office, United Kingdom. Horowitz, C.F. (1995). Community-based policing will prevent crime. In: P.A. Winters (Ed.) Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Inkster, N.D. (1992). The essence of community policing. The Police Chief, March, 28-31. Innes, M. (2003) Understanding Social Control: Deviance, Crime and Social Order, McGraw-Hill International: New York. J. Greene and S. Mastrofski. (1988) Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, Praeger, New York, NY. Jha Ganeswar (2004) From the Director’s Pen. Compendium on Good Practices in Community Policing, SVP National Police Academy, p. XV-XVII Jiao, Allan Y. (1998) Matching Police-Community Expectations. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 26. No. 4, p. 294. Jihong, Zhao et al. (2003) Community Policing: Did It Change the Basic Functions of Policing in the 1990s? A National Follow-up Study. Justice Quarterly, 20:697, p. 5. Jones, A and R Wiseman (2006), Community Policing in Europe: Structure and Best Practices- Sweden, France and Germany, Los Angeles Community Policing Think Tank. Jones, Charles O. (1984) An introduction to the study of public policy (3rd ed.), Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Joshi, G.P (2005) Police Accountability in India, CHRI, New Delhi, (pp 4-5) Kappeler,Victor E. Larry K. Gaines, (2011) Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective, Anderson Publishing. Katyal, Neal (2005) “Community Self-help,” Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 33 (1). Kelling, G L. & M H. Moore, (1998) The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives on Policing, P. 5. National Institute of justice, Washington (DC).

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

263

Kelling, G. & Moore, M. (1988) “From Political to Reform to Community: The Evolving Strategy of Police” in J. Greene & S. Mastrofski (eds) Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality New York: Praeger. Kelling, G. and Coles, C. (1997) Fixing Broken Windows. New York: The Free Press. Kelling, G.L. (1988). Police and communities: the quiet revolution. Perspectives on Policing, June, No. 4, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Kelling, G.L., R Wasserman & H Williams (1988). Police accountability and community policing, Perspectives on Policing, November 7, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Kelling, G.L., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C.E. Brown (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation. Kerley, K.R. and Scheb II, J.M. (1998) Law enforcement leaders tell researchers what they need to make community policing work. Community Policing Exchange, 6(23): 4. Kingdon J. W. . (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. London: Longman. Klockars, C.B. (1988). The rhetoric of community policing. In: J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger Publishers. Klockars, Carl B 1980. “The Dirty Harry Problem”, Annals of American Academy of Pol. And Social Science, 452: 33-47. Küçükuysal Bahadýr & Erhan Beyhan, (2011) Contingency Theory Approach for Effective Community Policing, Journal of Social Sciences, No:23, pp.259-268. Kuhn,Thomas S. (1970)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edn, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lambert, J.L. (1984). The policing crisis. In: P. Norton (Ed.), Law and Order and British Politics, Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company. Lawrence Paul R. & Jay William Lorsch, (1967) Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly 12, 1-30. Lindblom, Charles Edward, (1977) Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-Economic Systems, New York: Basic. Lindblom, Charles Edward, (2001) The Market System: what it is, how it works, and what to make of it, Yale University Press.

264

REFERENCES

Lovig, Justine H., & Wesley G. Skogan (1995) “Organizational Involvement in Community Policing,” Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consor- tium Project Paper No. 12, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Manning, Peter (1993) “Community-Based Policing,” in R. Dunham & G. Alpert, eds., Critical Issues in Policing, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Mastrofski, Stephen 1998. Community Policing and Police Organisation Structure in How to Recognize Good Policinged by J Brodeur, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mastrowski, S.D. (1988) ‘Community policing as reform: a cautionary tale’, in J. Greene and S. Mastrowski (eds), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality, New York: Praeger. McElroy, J. (1998) “Evaluating Service Delivery of Police Agencies: Suggestion for Focus and Strategy” in JP. Brodeur (ed) How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems & Issues Thousand Oaks: Sage & Police Executive Research Forum. McEwen, T. (1995) National Assessment Program: 1994 survey results. In Research in brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Meares, Tracey, & Dan Kahan (1998) “Law and Order in the Inner City,” 32 Law & Society Rev, 805-37. Meese, E. (1993). Community policing and the police officer, Perspectives on Policing, January, 15, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Mohanty S (2011) Community Policing Strategies in A Marketing Framework: Case Study of Mahila & Sishu Desk of Orissa submitted to Indian Institute of Management, Bengaluru (Mimeo). Mohanty S (2012) Community Policing in United States and Lessons for India, Paper submitted to IIM Bengaluru - Maxwell Public Policy Program, Maxwell School, Syracuse University, New York (Mimeo). Mohanty S (2012b) Community Policing Schemes of National Police Mission: Legal and Institutional Dynamics, Paper submitted to IIM Bengaluru (Mimeo). Mohanty S and Mohanty RK (2011) Police in India, Role, Responsibility and Accountability, Legal Associates, Cuttack. Moncada, E (2009) “Toward democratic policing in Colombia? Institutional accountability through lateral reform”, Comparative Politics, vol. 41, No. 4. Morabito, M S (2010), Understanding Community Policing as an Innovation: Patterns of Adoption, SAGE Publications.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

265

Nagel Stuart S (2001) Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation, Sage London. National Institute of Justice (1995) Community policing strategies. Research Preview, Washington, DC. NCRB, (2009,) Crime, MHA, Government of India, New Delhi. Nelson, B. (1997). Criminal Justice Research in Libraries and on the Internet. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. O’Donnell, Guillermo (1998) “Horizontal accountability in new democracies” Journal of Democracy, vol. 9, No. 3. Oppal, Wallace T.(Justice) (1994) Closing the Gap, Policing and the Community: The Recommendations, Ministry of Attorney General and the Union of British Columbia, Victoria. Palmiotto, M. (2000) Community Policing: A Policing Strategy for the 21st Century, Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Boston. Pate Antony M. et al (1986) Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report, Police Foundation, NW, Washington, DC. Peak, K.J. (1993). Policing America: Methods, Issues, Challenges. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Regents/Prentice Hall. Peruzzotti, Enrique and Catalina Smulovitz, eds., (2006), Enforcing the Rule of Law: Social Accountability in the New Latin American Democracies, Pittsburgh, and University of Pittsburgh Press. Podolefsky, Aaron (1984) “Rejecting Crime Prevention Programs: The Dynamics of Program Implementation in a High Need Community,” 44 Human Organization 33-40. Prenzler, T. & Sarre, R. (2002) “The Policing Complex” in A. Graycar & P.Grabosky (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology Melbourne: Cambridge University Press Punnoose J (2008) “A model for Community Policing”, published by the Bureau of Police Research and Development, Govt. of India. Radelet, L.A. & Carter, D.L. (1994). The Police and the Community, 5th ed., New York: Macmillan College Publishing Co. Rafael Perez, (2005) Community oriented policing: Brazilian Style, in Husain, S. (Ed) In War, Those Who Die Are Not Innocent, Rechtsgeleerdheid Proefschriften, Chapter-5. Raghavan, RK (2000) Policing a Democracy: A comparative study of India and the US, Manohar, New Delhi. Raju GHP, (E 2004), ‘Compendium on Good Practices in Community Policing’, SVP National Police Academy, Hyderabad

266

REFERENCES

Ratcliffe, J. (2003) “Intelligence-Led Policing” Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice April No.248 Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Ravi Kumar, R and S.S. Vaidyanathan (2000) Establishing Success Criteria and Baselines for Performance in Relation to Social Skills, Transparency and Responsiveness of Indian Police, Report Submitted to UNDP / BPR&D, Indian Institute of Management, Bengaluru, pp. 94-99. Read Tim and Nick Tilley (2000) Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime Reduction, Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series, England and Wales. Reiner, R. (1994). Policing and the police, In: Maguire M., Morgan R., Reiner R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reiss,Albert J Jr. and David Bordua, (1967)”Environment and Organization: A Perspective on the Police.” In David J. Bordua (ed.) The Police: Six Sociological Essays (N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), pp. 25-55. Roelofse, C. (2007) The Challenges of Community Policing: A Management Perspective, Durban: LexisNexis. Rohe W M et.al (1997) Community Oriented Policing: What It Is - Why It Works - How to Get Started, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Rosenbaum, D., Lurigo, A. & Davis, R. (1998) The Prevention of Crime: Social & Situational Strategies Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Rosenhaum, Dennis P. (1982) “Police Responses: Conventional and New Approaches to Local Crime Problems.” Paper delivered to the American Psychological Association annual convention. Washington. DC. Sampson, Rana and Michael S. Scott (2000) Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Sarre, R. (1997) “Crime Prevention and Police” in P. O’Malley & A. Sutton (eds) Crime Prevention in Australia: Issues in Policy & Research Leichhardt: Federation Press Schaffer, E.B. (1980). Community Policing, London: Croom Helm. Schieder, M and R Chapman, (2003)Community policing and terrorism: Journal of. Homeland Security, April Issue. Scott, Michael S. (2000) Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

267

First 20 Years, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Scott, William R. (2002) Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Segrave, Marie and Jerry Ratcliffe, (2004), Community Policing: A descriptive overview, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Segrave, Marie and Jerry Ratcliffe, (2004), Community Policing: A descriptive overview, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Sherman, L. & Eck, J. (2002) “Policing for Crime Prevention” in L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh & D. MacKenzie (eds) EvidenceBased Crime Prevention London: Routledge. Short, C. (1983). Community policing: beyond slogans. In: T. Bennett (Ed.), The Future of Policing, (Cropwood Conference Series No. 15). Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology. Simon Herbert A. (1957) Models of Man. John Wiley Press. Simon Herbert A. (1997) Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 3. To be read with Vols. 1 and 2 in 1982 MIT Press. Singh Jarmal (2004) Community Policing in the Context of Singapore, 112th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers (Resource Paper No 56), Singapore Police. Skogan, W G (1995) Community Policing in the United States, in J P Bordeur ed. Comparisons in Policing, pp.86-112, Avebury Press. Skogan, W G and S M Hartnett (1997) Community Policing, Chicago style, New York: Oxford Press. Skolnick, J.H. & Bayley, D.H. (1991), The new blue line. In: C.B. Klockars and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Thinking about Police: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Somerville, P. (2009) “The feeling’s mutual”: respect as the basis for cooperative interaction’, in A. Millie (ed) Securing respect: behavioural expectations and anti-social behaviour in the UK, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 139-167. Sousa, W.H. & Kelling, G.L. (2006). Of “broken windows,” criminology, and criminal justice. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, pp.77-97, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sparrow, M.K. (1988). Implementing community policing, Perspectives on Policing, November 1988, No. 9. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

268

REFERENCES

Spelman, W. and J. Eck. 1987. “Problem Oriented Policing,” in Research in Brief, January. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Sullivan, Joseph M. 1914. “Irish Police Gleanings.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 4 (6):876-887. SUNNY CELINE (2011), INFLUENCE OF JANAMAITHRI SURAKSHA PROJECT ON THE COMMUNITIES, (11 VOLUMES) THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RAJAGIRI COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA SVPNPA, (2004) Compendium on Good Practices in Community Policing, SVPNPA, Hyderabad, pp 163-64. Thacher, David (2001), Conflicting Values in Community Policing, Law & Society Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. pp. 765-798. Thomas, G. (2011) A typology for the case study in social science, Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), pp. 511-521. Tillman, R H (2000) The Effectiveness of Community Policing, School of Police Staff and Command, Eastern Michigan University. Trojanowicz, R.C. (1992). Building support for community policing: an effective strategy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61 (5), 7-12. Trojanowicz, R.C. (1994). The future of community policing, In: D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Trojanowicz, Robert & Bucqueroux, Bonnie (1990). Community Policing: a Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Trojanowicz, Robert & Bucqueroux, Bonnie (1998). Community Policing: How to Get Started. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. TROJANOWICZ, ROBERT C. (1972),‘POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS: PROBLEMS AND PROCESS,” CRIMINOLOGY, VOL. 9, NO. 4, PP. 401-425. Tsang, E.P.K. (2008), “Computational intelligence determines effective rationality”, International Journal on Automation and Control 5 (1): 63–6. Tyre, M. & S. Braunstein (1994). Building Better Civilian Review Boards. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63(12), 10-14. U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. (1994). 25 Years of Criminal Justice Research: The National Institute of Justice [NCJ 151287]. Washington, DC: Author. United Nations (2011) Introductory Handbook on Policing Urban Space, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the UNHabitat, New York.

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

269

Velasco, M. (2005). “Practical Literature: What to Read and How to Read It.” In C. Bruce, J. Cooper, and S. Hick (eds.) Exploring Crime Analysis: Readings in Essential Skills, Oakland Park, Kan.: International Association of Crime Analysts Press. Vernon, R.L. & J.R. Lasley (1992). Police/Citizen partnerships in the inner city. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 61 (5), 18-22. Virta, S (2006) ‘Community Policing’ in The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, eds. McLaughlin, E., and Muncie, J., Sage: London. Waddington, P. A. J. (1984). Community policing: a sceptical appraisal. In: P. Norton (Ed.), Law and Order and British Politics, Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company. Walker, S., C. Walker & J. McDavid (1992) The Victoria Community Police Stations: A Three-Year Evaluation Canadian Police College: Ottawa. Weatheritt, M. (1983). Community policing: does it work and how do we know? A review of research. In: T. Bennett (Ed.), The Future of Policing, Cropwood Conference Series No. 15, Cambridge, University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology. Weatheritt, M. (1988). Community policing: rhetoric or reality?. In: J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, New York, Praeger Publishers. Web Page: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1649/Police-Community-PolicingOrigins-evolution-community- policing.html, Retrieved on 20.01.2013 Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Weisel D (1999) Conducting Community Surveys, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Weisel, D. (2005). “Solving Crime and Disorder Problems Through Applied Research.” In C. Bruce, J. Cooper, and S. Hick (eds.), Exploring Crime Analysis: Readings in Essential Skills, Oakland Park, Kan.: International Association of Crime Analysts Press. Williams E.J. (2003), Structuring In Community Policing: Institutionalizing Innovative Change, Police Practice and Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 119–129. Wilson, J. Q. (1980) The Politics of Regulation (New York: Basic Books). Wilson, J.Q. & Kelling, G.L. (1993). Broken Windows. In: R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

270

REFERENCES

Wilson, J.Q. (1973) Political organizations. New York: Basic. Wilson, James and G L Kelling, (1982) Broken Windows: The Police and neighbourhood safety, Atlantic monthly, 3: 29–38. Wilson, Jeremy M. (2005) Determinants of Community Policing: An Open Systems Model of Implementation, Unpublished report prepared for the United States Department of Justice. Winship, Christopher, & Jenny Berrien (1999) “Boston Cops and Black Churches,” 136 Public Interest 52-68. Wisler, Dominique and Ihekwoaba D. Onwudiwe eds., (2009) Community Policing: International Patterns and Comparative Perspectives. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis: Florida. Wong Kam C. (2009) A General Theory of Community Policing, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio. Wroblewski, H. M., & Hess, K. M. (2003) Introduction to law enforcement and Criminal Justice, Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. Wulff, D. (2000) Winning strategies offered for working with different cultures. Community Policing Exchange, 7(3): 1–2. Wycoff, M.A. (1988). The benefits of community policing: evidence and conjecture. In: J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger Publishers. Zehring, T.L. (1994). The Mesa crime-free multi-housing program. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63 (6), 8-12. Zhao, Jihong, Q C Thurman and N P Lovrich (1995) Communityoriented policing across the US: Facilitators and impediment to implementation, American Journal of Police, Vol.14, No 1. Websites 1. www.bprd.gov.in 2. www.cjgsu.net, 3. www.lae.jrank.org/ 4. www.cops.usdoj.gov, 5, www.ncrb.gov.in 6. www.wikipedia.org

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

271

SUBJECT INDEX A Abu Dhabi Conference 66 Accountability 11, 17, 20, 22, 37, 49, 50, 55, 57, 77, 100, 141, 182, 189, 190, 201 Accountability Commission 132, 133, 134, 245 Adilabad Andhra Pradesh 95 Agency problems 5, 190, 192, 194, 196, 200 Agenda Setting 42, 121, 132, 193 Alfred the Great 66 Andragogy 38 Anglo-Saxon 66 Anti-crime fighting 7 Anti-law enforcement 7 Anti-social behavior 10, 76 Argentina 66 Autocratic leadership 38

B Bangladesh 1, 66 Beat area 13, 60, 116, 208, 209 Beat assignments 9, 10 Beat Officer 85, 93, 115, 127, 136, 142, 162, 171, 187, 199, 205, 207, 208, 209 Beat Policing 101 Beating Crime 75 Bobbies 66, 67 Brazil 1, 54, 66, 76, 78, 177 Broad police support 54, 55 Broken Windows Theory 23 Brunei 66 Budgeting 56, 58 Building Communities 75 Bureaucratic Cooperation 54, 56

C Canada 23, 66, 67, 76, 82, 83, 102 CAPAM 94

Cape Town 78 Case studies 4, 106, 122, 178 CATCH 114 Center for the Study of Violence 76 Central Police Organisation (CPO) 98 Central review 173 Challenges to community policing 5, 56, 61, 62, 194, 198 China 3, 65, 66 Citizen input 116 Citizens' ability 10 City/County Databook 27 Civil War 6, 67 Cognitive limitations 48 Commissioner of Police 93, 254, 255 Communist insurgency 79 Community characteristics 25, 26, 36 Community constables 66 Community Consultative Committee 132 Citizens' Advisory Council 132 Community Counselling Centre 101 Community defences 9 Community Empowerment 124, 127, 141, 143, 173, 180, 182, 189, 201, 220 Community engagement 8, 12, 141, 194 Community involvement 7, 10, 17, 84 Community Liaison Group 101, 201, 249 Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) 8, 15 Community Police Officer (CPO) 4, 10, 115, 116, 122, 129, 134, 136, 141, 146 Community Policing Challenges 194-198 Criticism of Community Policing 19-23 Definitions 6-9 Development of the Concept 65-68 Features 9-14 Nine P's of Community Policing11-14 Recommendations 198-201

272

SUBJECT INDEX

Theories of Community Policing 23-38 What Community Policing is not 14-15 Community Policing Department Centre 66 Community Policing Resource Centres (CPRCs) in Punjab 95 Community problems 6, 7, 10, 32, 59, 70, 71 Community-oriented policing (COP) 2, 36, 62, 75, 78, 177 Community-oriented policing project 76, 77 Context- Process- Outcome Matrix 5, 23, 64, 175, 189, 198 CP and PCR 29 Criminal Justice System 56, 92 Criminology 7, 81, 123 Cuban Missile Crisis 42, 45

Ex-servicemen 117, 204, 211 External challenges 5, 194, 196

D

H

Decentralization 7, 12, 74 Department of Homeland Security 75, 103 Developing Trust 12, 64, 124, 127, 141, 143, 173, 180, 182 Director General of Police 113, 132, 202, 245, 247 Dispute redressal mechanism 165, 188, 241 District Advisory Samithi 115, 118, 208, 255 Drug prevention training 77

E Emergency telephone systems 67 Empowerment of constabulary 128, 169, 175, 180, 188 Engaging stake holders 124, 127, 144, 173, 180, 183, 199 Essence of Decision 44, 45, 46 Ethics, Legality, Responsibility and Trust 56, 66

F Features of Community Policing 9, 14, 73 Field ethnography 4, 121 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 4, 106, 120, 121, 128, 131, 165, 178, 180 Foot-patrolman 10 France 66, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90

G Geographical focus 16, 17 Global Perspective 65 GOs-Government Orders 123, 125, 133, 150, 171, 173, 184, 188, 190, 196, 200 Government politics model 42, 45, 46, 47, 50, 173 Great Britain 54, 66, 177

Hand-holding 64, 125, 128, 153, 174, 180, 185, Herring-bone policy model 201 Hot spots 14

I Impact Phase 45, 64, 106, 127, 128, 131, 136, 159, 175, 178, 179, 187, 189, 193 Implementation Phase 4, 64, 127, 136, 143, 158, 174, 180, 183, 184, 192, 196 Incivilities hypothesis 24, 25, 67, 68 Incrementalism 44, 49, 64, 133, 146, 152, 174, 185 In-depth Interview (IDI) 4, 106, 120, 128, 178, 180 India 2, 3, 4, 37, 65, 91, 177, 178, 179, 187, 194, 201 Indian Police Service 120, 134 Indonesia 66 Institutionalisation 3, 65, 75, 96, 127, 128, 171, 172, 175, 180, 188, 238, 244 Interest groups 9, 41, 42, 81

COMMUNITY POLICING Internal Challenges 5, 194 Internal Change 56, 58 Internal marketing 195, 200 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), USA 94, 95, 102 International Community Policing Awards 94 International innovations Awards Program 94 ISO 9001 PS 120

J Janamaithri Suraksha Project (JSP) 2, 4, 96, 101, 105, 114 Janamaithri Suraksha Samithi 4, 115, 117, 119, 143, 154, 162, 164, 186, 204 Janamaithri Beat 116, 207

K Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment 21 Kerala Police 2, 3, 96, 107, 112, 115, 116, 132, 138, 171, 177, 181, 194, 203 Kerala Police Act 171, 188, 250 Koban 79, 80, 116 Kolkata Police of Nabadisha 94 KT Thomas Commission 123

L Laos 66 Legal and institutional framework 2, 101, 107, 177, 179, 200

M Mahila and Sishu Desk' of Odisha Police 95 Maithri of Andhra Pradesh 95 Malayalam Manorama 135 Malaysia 66 Maldives 66 Market Associations of Delhi Police 94 Measurable performance standards 49 Megadigm shift 23, 37, 38, 175 Metropolitan London Police 66

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

273

Micro Missions (MMs) 100 Ministry of Home Affairs 98, 100, 103, 104, 113, 123 Misconceptions in Public mind 124, 127, 137, 180, 181 Model Police Act 98, 99 Mohalla Committee Movement Trust of Mumabi 95 Mongolia 66 Monitoring, Control and Feedback 64, 126, 128, 180 Motorised patrol 67 Municipal police departments 67 Mutual pledge system 66, 67

N National Police Commission 96, 98 National Overarching Model 101, 103, 106, 178, 201 National Police Mission 100, 103, 201 National Security Commission (NSC) 98 Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) 79 Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) 79, 246 Neighbourhood policing 75, 76, 85 Nepal 66 New managerialism 38 Newark Foot Patrol Experiment 21, 70, 71 Nodal Officer 200 Normative framework 53

O Observation 4, 30, 37, 106, 121, 122, 178, 251 Ontario Provincial Police 66 Organisational behavior 38, 153, 154, 185, 195, 201 Organisational process model 42, 45, 46, 50, 173 Organizational commitment 25, 26, 27, 179, 188 Organizational decentralisation 56 Organizational strategies 8 Organizational structure 6. 62 Organizational Transformation 15

274

SUBJECT INDEX

Overall Heightened Sense of Security 126, 128, 162, 164, 175, 180, 187

P Papua New Guinea 66 Paradigm shift 9, 23, 34, 44, 53, 72, 93, 159, 189, 194 Participatory management 38, 169 Paternalistic attitude 114 Peace Corps projects 78 Peelian consensual system 67, 141, 182 Peelian doctrine 67 Personalized Policing 13 Philippines 66 PIL 97 Pilots 148, 192, 195, 198, 199, 200 Pilot Project 125, 128, 151, 174, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185 Police Act drafting Committee (PADC) 98 Police Act of 1861 2, 91, 92, 97, 177 Police Bill 98, 103 Police Boards 173 Police Circular Order 115, 116, 171, 173, 174, 189 Police Community Partnership 8, 56, 71, 101, 201 Police community support officers (PCSOs) 75 Police Complaint Authorities 173 Police entrepreneurs 6 Police ethnocentrism 38 Police legitimacy 7 Police Manual 132, 247 Police mediation in availing basic services 126, 128, 168, 175, 180, 188 Police Mee Kosam (Police for you) 75 Police mission 2, 6, 61, 63, 96, 100, 103, 177, 200, 201 Police Mitra', friends of police 101 Police Performance and Accountability Commission 132, 133, 190, 193, 197 Police Reforms 78, 96, 100 Police Training Officers Program 74 Police-community partnerships 8, 56, 71

Police-community relations (PCR) 2, 8, 10, 14, 19, 27, 28, 69, 73, 177 Police-specific benefits -2, 19, 177 Policy Entrepreneurship 44, 54, 134, 173, 174 Policy systems 44 Policy Window 43, 44, 45, 133, 181, 190, 197 Policy processes 2, 5, 38, 41, 53, 63, 96, 101, 154, 177, 186, 190, 193, 197, 201 Political Acceptance 126, 128, 158, 159, 174, 180, 187 Political Consensus 54, 55, 96, 171, 188 Political leadership 2, 134, 135, 144, 152, 155, 173, 174, 177, 183, 186, 190, 198 Political stream 2, 44, 101, 107, 133, 134, 135, 173, 174, 178, 197 Political will 5, 64, 96, 106, 124, 136, 144, 158, 173, 180, 190, 194, 196, 197 Positive interaction 16, 17 Police Orders 125, 149, 151, 184 Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 97 Predecessor-successor syndrome 5, 124, 127, 139, 140, 180, 182, 190, 196 Pre-implementation Dynamics 4, 64, 127, 178, 179, 180, 181, 189, 190, 192 Prevention emphasis 16, 17 Preventive patrols 67 Private security guards 160, 187, 206 Proactive policing 8, 10, 11, 16, 55, 62, 73, 82, 96, 105, 163, 169, 176, 194, 203 Pro-active engagement 165, 188, 241 Problem Oriented Policing (POP) 23, 24, 71 Problem solving 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 29, 31, 32, 40, 56, 57, 70, 72, 73, 85, 105, 126, 138, 159, 176 Prosecution 11 Public assistance 7 Public confidence 6, 95, 170 Public cooperation 7, 11, 62, 94 Public policy 2, 5, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 53, 54, 63, 64, 75, 101, 102, 126, 130, 158, 172, 179, 181, 187, 192, 197, 201

COMMUNITY POLICING Public relations 14, 28, 124, 156, Publicity and propaganda 125, 128, 148, 174, 180, 184, 189

Q Qualitative analysis 129 Qualitative Research Cycle 108, 109, 121 Qualitative Research Pyramid 123, 179 Quality of life 6, 28, 30, 57, 60, 87, 176

R Rapport 6, 142, 160 Rational actor model 42, 45, 46, 49, 50 Regional Community Policing Institute Research Design 4, 106, 108 Residential Associations 117, 204 Residential Police Box (RPB) 80 Residents Welfare Associations 94 Resource Augmentation 64, 126, 128, 155, 174, 180, 186, 192, 200 Resource Planning, Capacity Building and Training Needs 128, 180 Resource scarcity 5, 198 Royal Canadian Mounted Police 76, 83

S Sao Paulo 66, 76, 77 Scotland Yard 67 Sector boundaries 79 Sector commanders 79 Security for the vulnerable sections 126, 128, 180 Selection and training of field functionaries 199 Self-directed learning 38 Senior citizens 114, 122, 126, 165, 166, 175, 188, 193, 201 September 11, 2001 75 Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India 92 Shared benefits 2, 3, 19, 101, 176, 177, 178, 193 Singapore 1, 54, 66, 79 Social Audit & Research 201

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

275

Social control 42, 58, 60, 141, 182 Social Engagement 54, 55 Social Resource Theory (SRT) 23, 30, 32, 175 Social work 7, 15, 21, 144, 148, 155, 169, 183, 195 Soft Skills training 199 SOP- Standard Operating Procedures 116, 125, 128, 129, 149, 150, 151, 154, 171, 174, 180, 184, 192, 199 South Africa 1, 54, 66, 78-83, 177 Sri Lanka 66 Stake holders 64, 120, 124, 127, 134, 135, 144-148 Standard Operating Procedures 125, 128, 149, 174, 180, 184, 199 Standardization of Service Delivery 154 Strategy 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 28, 31, 43, 44, 56, 57 State Human Rights Commission 134 State Level Nodal Officer 139, 144, 145 State List 92 State of Bahia 77 State of Minas Gerais 77 State Police Chief 134, 196, 198 State Security Commissions 173 Statistical measurement 129 Storefront operations 10 Structures of the environment 48 Student Police Cadet 149, 165, 188 Supervision Style 11 Suspicious activities 160, 187, 216 Sustained campaign 138, 173, 181 Synchronization 9

T Taiwan 66 Texas-Brazil Police Exchange 77 The Friends of Police' (FOP) of Tamilnadu 93 The Solomon Island 66 Theory of democratic governance 30 Theory of empowerment 30 Theory of Innovation 23, 25, 26, 175 Theory of self-help 4, 30, 31, 34, 120, 138

276

SUBJECT INDEX

Theory of the people 30 Traditional pedagogical method 38 Traditional Policing 10, 11, 34, 62, 69, 90, 165, 241 Traffic offences 160, 187, 205, 214 Training 55-59, 62, 74, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 90, 93, 96, 103, 125, 128, 133, 139, 146, 147, 148, 150 Transmitting 48 Triangulation 106, 174, 175, 178, 181 Trichy Community Policing scheme 93 Trust deficit 5, 142, 183, 195, 197, 199 Trust-building measures 199

U UDF 101, 133, 135, 177, 178, 197, 221 UK 75 Ukraine 3, 65, 66

Uniformed CPOs 4, 120, 136 Union Territories 92, 96 Urban Body Chairpersons 149, 159, 227 Urban slums 77

V Vanita Jagaran Samiti 120, 139, 143, 145, 149, 164, 221 Victoria 81, 83 Vietnam 66

W White Paper 75, 123 Workshops 140, 148, 150, 151, 157, 173, 184, 186, 249

Z Zelethemba model 78

COMMUNITY POLICING

AS A

PUBLIC POLICY

277

AUTHOR INDEX A

E

Adams 36 Alderson 62, 63 Alexander 21 Allison 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 156, 186 Alpert 8 Austin 30 Ayyar 42, 44, 53-55, 131, 174, 181

Eck 8, 20, 52, 72 Edwards 57 Ellison 67 Ericson 21

B Basu 94 Bayley 7, 20, 62, 141, 154, 159, 173, 175, 182, 186 Bittner 31, 32 Bobinsky 21 Breen 58 Brito 66-68 Brogden106 Brooks 40 Brown 22, 23, 57, 63, 72 Bryett 22 Bucqueroux 1, 7-9, 12, 14, 57-60, 182

C Cameron 20-21 Choudhary 1, 23, 37, 38, 58 CHRI 97 Chriss 73, 75 Coquilhat 16 Cordner 7, 8, 16 Cox 22 Cumming 32 Cyril 30

D Daneke 40 Dhillon 92 Dodd 40 Dye 39, 40

F Fielding 8, 9 Fischer 39 Frederich 40 Fridell 66 Friedmann 22

G Galbraith 35 Gigerenzer 48 Goldstein 8, 23-25, 31-32, 67, 68, 71, 72, 173, 175, 186 Greene 20, 21, 62, 70

H Harvey 58 Hennink 108, 109, 121, 123, 131, 136

I Inkster 22

J Jha 93 Jiao 62 Jihong 35 Jones A 84 Jones C 40 Joshi 97

K Kappeler 23, 34, 195 Katyal 31 Kelling 21, 23-25, 62, 68, 70-72, 74, 141, 173, 175, 182

278

AUTHOR INDEX

Kingdon 43-45, 173, 174, 181 Klockars 20, 21 Küçükuysal 35-37 Kuhn 53

L Lambert 21-22 Lawrence 23, 35 Lindblom 44, 49, 51, 146, 152, 174, 183, 185 Lovig 61

M Manning 21, 61, 153 Mastrowski 61 Meares 61 Mohanty 62, 73, 102 Mohanty's 99 Moncada 55 Morabito 23, 25, 27, 175

S Sarre 57, 62 Schaffer 21, 23, 63 Scott 35, 36 Segrave 2, 19, 61 Short 20 Simon 44, 47-49 Singh 79, 80 Skogan 7, 11-12, 61, 63, 70, 73, 186 Skolnick 62 Spelman 72

T Thacher 61 Thomas 122 Trojanowicz 7-9, 12, 14, 23, 27-29, 57-61, 141, 147, 159, 174, 182, 183 Tsang 48 Tyre 22

U

National Institute of Justice, US 23, 72

U.S. Deptt. of Justice 8, 15, 74, 103, 141, 182 United Nations 54, 65

O

V

O'Donnell 55

Vernon 22 Virta 7

N

P Palmiotto 8, 147, 174, 183 Peak 22 Peruzzotti 55 Podolefsky 61 Prenzler 57 Punnoose 8, 10, 134

R Radelet 63 Ratcliffe 2, 19, 57, 61 Reiner 22 Reiss 10, 31 Roelofse 66, 67 Rosenbaum 69

W Waddington 19 Walker 69 Weatheritt 19, 20 Williams 56-60 Wilson 23-25, 36, 47, 51-52, 62, 68, 71, 74, 173, 175, 182 Winship 71 Wong 23, 30-34, 175 Wulff 58 Wycoff 21

Z Zehring 22 Zhao 73