Is it possible to create policing strategies that
identify the community as a major stakeholder and are efficient as well as
effective? Policing is especially important to observe because it highlights a
specific tension between the drive for efficiency and for government to
establish trusting partnerships with its citizens. In light of the recent
federal case over the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy, it seems that
results-driven policing has alienated entire communities—particularly
low-income minority communities. I find Meulman’s case study on the Dutch
police force to offer a more inclusive (and desirable) alternative.
The NYPD’s model of policing is celebrated
nationally for its performance driven efficiency. Crime has gone down
significantly in the last few years, with aggressive policing given much of the
credit. No one can argue that lower crime is desirable, but those living in
poor, high crime communities of color have a drastically different experience
with the police than their white counterparts. The push for arrests and
stop-and-frisk quotas has released a powder keg of frustration in these communities,
with kids on their way to school reporting that police subject them to frequent
pat downs in broad daylight in front of community members.
Police commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg publicly
shun such behavior, chalking it up to a few bad apples, but the reality is that
police officers are behaving badly because of intense pressure from above.
During the recent trial over the controversial policy, one police officer
testified that his precinct’s
performance goals were 20 summonses, 5 street
stops, and 1 arrest per month. The intense pressure coming from on high makes
it difficult to establish trust within the community. How can you build a
partnership and co-produce results rather than rule from on high when the
community you serve refuses to work with you because of your management
tactics?
In stark contrast to the NYPD stands the Dutch
police force in the Netherlands. Louis Meulman’s work explores the consensus
style of governance adopted by the Dutch, with a particular focus on its
community policing style. Establishing
trust is a primary focus, as is integrating the police force into the community.
In order to do this the police must “relinquish {their} monopoly on safety and
crime” (Meulman 209). Rather than a hierarchical approach, the Dutch police
realize that citizen support is crucial and seek to attain it by developing
partnerships. They enable their police officers by allowing them high levels of
discretion rather than soul crushing quotas. This may be in direct conflict
with performance driven contracts and market oriented governance, but I think building
relationships are more important than efficiency.
Policy
makers, especially Bloomberg, often create a false dilemma: if you don’t have
aggressive, top down policing, you can’t have low crime rates, they say—even if
certain communities are essentially living in a police state. The Dutch
policing strategy proves that you can have public safety, cooperation and low
crime rate.
