Towards a public safety model that is broader than policing

I wrote about my reservations with "Defund the Police" as a slogan here, "Is it too late to change the messaging on "Defund the Police"? How about "Reconstruct Policing"?," and more recently about more focused ways of addressing public safety within neighborhoods in the recent entry, "Equity planning: an update," about the approach undertaken in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh.

But I have to say, recently reading the book White Fragility I can see why people did react to my comments on "Defunding" in terms of "just listen," even though I bristled at this, since I've been making similar points about policing, based on my experiences in DC (which do include a lot of examples of being a crime victim) for more than 15 years.

In doing some filing, I came across a recent clipping, letters to the editor in the New York Times ("Rethinking the Traditional Police Model"), which get to the crux of the issue.

The first by now retired urban planner and public administrator Subir Mukerjee makes the point that if there were a real "public safety" model, police would be but one element of a complete approach/tool kit. That funding for mental health, schools, affordable housing, and economic opportunities for the disenfranchised would be part of it.

I didn't know ... the second letter, by UC Berkeley Emeritus Professor Malcolm Feeley, mentions that Herman Goldstein, the creator of the "problem oriented policing" approach, made the point that police are hired and trained "to fight crime" but most of their time is spend "solving problems."

(This point was also made to me by a former DC Deputy Police Chief, when I guest lectured to one of his classes at UDC.)

Goldstein called for a more "social services" model rather than the military or warrior model. From the letter:

They spend most of their time solving problems: advising victims of crime, helping people in distress, sorting out arguments, breaking up fights, managing crowds and the like.

His simple but profound message: These are crucial services and integrally related to dealing with crime, so recruit people who want to undertake these activities, and then train them accordingly.

His ideas call for a social services rather than military model. ...

His work led to his receipt of the 2017 Stockholm Prize in International Criminology, which is considered equal to the Nobel Prize within the field in terms of prestige, importance and recognition.

This is his speech, On problem-oriented policing: the Stockholm lecture," Crime Science, 2018.  Professor Goldstein died in January. From the article:

I proposed a new paradigm for reforming the police (Goldstein 1979, 1990). I argued that—in seeking to improve policing—more attention be focused on the substance of policing—on the outcomes of police efforts to deal with the specific problems that comprise their business. I labeled the paradigm “POP”. It called for the police:

• To identify specific problems the public expected them to handle;
• To dig deeply into understanding each problem; and
• To think freshly and creatively about the best possible tailor-made response.

As the police searched for that response, they were urged to place a high value:

• On preventive action;
• On responses that preferably do not depend wholly on the criminal justice system; and
• On alternatives that engaged the community, other public agencies, and members of the private sector having a direct interest in the problem.

The process then called for implementing the agreed-upon response. And the final step called for a strong commitment to assessing the impact of that response, particularly for its effectiveness and fairness.

When such an idea is launched, it is extraordinarily difficult to track its diffusion, to measure its impact, or to gauge its overall effectiveness (see Leigh et al. 1996, 1998; Scott, 2000; Weisburd et al. 2010). Predictably, many early initiatives reflected good intentions, but often lacked a fundamental understanding of the concept...

Despite these gains, I have grown accustomed to viewing successful efforts to implement POP—when carried out in all of its full dimensions—as episodic rather than systematic; as the results of relatively isolated cells of initiative, energy and competence. I view these pockets of achievement as exciting and pointing the way but sprinkled among a vast sea of police operations that remain traditional and familiar. So I feel the need, especially in the current climate in the United States, to guard against exaggerating what is being achieved in POP, especially when related to the magnitude of the still unmet needs in policing. ...

-- Center for Problem Oriented Policing, Arizona State University