The Future of Policing: Public Trust
Before I go into this week’s post, I want to draw your attention to a new project being undertaken by a college professor acquaintance who, like me, has worked extensively with law enforcement. In his Jan. 1 blog, he writes:
Seeking LE organization willing to work virtually with supervised university students.
The goal is to give students more exposure to real officers and police administrators and fewer TV cops.
Are you willing to partner with a handful of students with retired-LE professor oversight on a small project tailored to your department/team needs? All project ideas considered, prefer those related to mobile technology, with no anticipated cost to your organization.
I got excited about this even before Carter referred his readers to Cops 2.0, so please head on over, read the rest of his post and let us know if you’re interested. Thanks!
Policing for a future generation
I find Carter’s work — bringing younger citizens into active law enforcement research — especially important because, as 2012 begins, I think we need to take stock of where policing currently sits. In recent months I’ve seen a couple of opinions that indicate community policing, as we knew it in the 1990s, is dead; meanwhile, technology provides police with ever-increasing amounts of data about private citizens. Law enforcement, along with the societies it polices, is clearly in transition as technology and privacy collide at unprecedented rates.
This is not just true of the kinds and amount of data an investigator can glean from social media, surveillance video, license plate readers, and so on. It will also increase as law enforcement becomes comfortable with technology such as:
- Augmented reality
- The internet of things
- Radio frequency identification (RFID)
- Artificial intelligence
How police use these technologies, the extent to which they use them, and what they do with the data will face intense public and legal scrutiny, as they should. Now’s the time to get comfortable with transparency; if you’re worried about the bad guys finding out how you use technology, then you need to get creative about understanding 1) what the public needs to know and 2) how to communicate it to reduce privacy fears without giving away too many details.
Transparency sits between accountability and exposure
This may be more important than you think. As Scott Dickson wrote the other day, some agencies remain steeped in politics, manipulating their crime statistics by asking officers not to take reports. This, as Scott writes, is a double public relations whammy: not only does it look bad to citizens, who are unlikely to support budget increases for such an unprofessional agency; it also hurts the agency’s ability to see (and thus respond to) emerging problem patterns.
That’s especially worrisome given the balancing act our culture finds itself in as we begin a new decade. This infographic from the Institute for the Future has an interesting item, a “critical balance” of exposure and accountability that notes:
In the face of growing demand for accountability, public exposure will emerge as as a multifaceted strategy for disrupting existing power structures, both hidden and obvious, both criminal and socially beneficial.
There is both danger and opportunity in that balance: danger to certain law enforcement power structures, like the kind that manipulate crime stats. But also opportunity, for innovative investigators to understand and exploit how criminal power structures are being disrupted.
Indeed, Tim Burrows made relevant predictions in his recent post for the IACP Social Media Beat:
- The ‘love-in’ experienced, “just because” the public’s local police are using social media is over and the public will demand (and deserve) greater accountability.
- There will be less tolerance for mistakes, faux pas, and ignorance.
- Working partnerships with individuals of influence, community groups, professional partnerships, and other police agencies will be standard.
As arms of the government, it’s incumbent on police to provide fair leadership to their communities. The law enforcement commander who doesn’t believe he has to justify his agency’s technology use — who believes crime-fighting is justification unto itself — necessarily invites public scrutiny. So does the commander who takes advantage of grant money without a long-term strategy to go with it; both COPS and homeland security programs have seen this happen.
True transparency shows strength, not weakness
This month’s Officer.com column describes using content to serve an agency’s goals, whether related specifically to social media, or more broadly to relationship-building. Besides that column, nearly two years ago (!) I wrote about one example of this kind of activity. There’s a lot of promise for communication. But also a lot of agencies that are so focused on the status quo that they can’t get out of their own way.
Digital content shared through social media can show how police are relevant and important to civil society, as well as weaknesses that need to be shored up. This is the exact opposite of stat manipulation because it’s not trying to cover over weakness; it’s leadership in asking for help to solve the problem.
Yes, the public needs to know a strong police force can competently and adequately enforce laws; but that’s during personal or community crisis. If an agency can’t provide services, in or out of crisis, because it lacks the funds to buy the technology that would enable that provision, then the public deserves to know up front, and deserves to become part of the solution. That was the promise of community policing.
What balances are you striking in your police work?
Other Posts by Christa Miller
- Andrew Allison
- Andrew Krzmarzick
- Anthony Zacharzewski
- Candi Harrison
- Carl Haggerty
- Craig Thomler
- Dave Briggs
- David Eaves
- Elizabeth Ross-Harrison
- Emma Mulqueeny
- Greg Palmer
- Gwynne Kostin
- Ingrid Koehler
- Jackson Pollock
- Jared Elosta
- John Gray
- Justin Herman
- Kit Plummer
- Lauri Stevens
- Liz Azyan
- Marc Gunther
- Melissa Tullio
- Mike Kujawski
- Noel Hatch
- Oliver Bell
- Paige Craig
- Paul Canning
- Richard Fahey
- Sara Cope
- Stephen Morse
- Steve Radick
- Susan Gardner