The paper is based on the article written by Ken Peak an Assistant Professor in the magazine The Police Chief of October 2012 with the titled, “community policing and CompStat: Merged or mutually exclusive?”. It is published monthly by the University of Nevada, Reno.
The double terrorists attack on the government buildings i.e. the Pentagon House and the World Trade Center on 9th November 2001 changed the operations of the police in the United States of America. The government and communities realized the need to come up with new and sophisticated strategies to counter terrorist threats in the country and its facilities in the world. The police have a big role to play in spearheading programs aimed at fighting terrorism. Terrorism deserves to be given all the attention it requires from the government and the public because terrorist activities interfere with public peace and calm while causing extreme fear among the people. Through community policing the government will rein force successful models that have worked in the past as well as introduce new measures which have evolved as a result of advancement in methods used by terrorist groupings (Terry, 2005).
All these strategies are aimed at preparing for potential criminal activities in times to come. Terrorism and criminal activities did not stop with the September 9 attacks and the need for a more advanced security operations could not be over emphasized by the then president of the United States, George Bush. Creating public awareness was therefore a core function of the government because public security begins with individual security even though the security of the country lies squarely on the shoulders of the government. Intelligence reports stated that anti terrorist security measures could make more success if an aware public played their role as community policing supports. The police are required to go beyond the conventional role of protection or playing guardian but also recognize the importance of public involvement in the security of the community (Eck, 2010).
The first step taken by the government was to create a Homeland Security Department (DHS) under the internal security docket. The department was supplied with the entire required infrastructure and its status was elevated up to the cabinet class. This department among other activities was to find a way of involving the public actively into the issue of community policing. It was to coordinate with other security agencies in state and federal government to boost security in the community. The community also has a crucial role in supporting healing and supported victims and their families to get back to their feet when they could resume their normal lives. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was also to recommend changes to correctional facilities to ensure that suspects and those found guilty of having committed terrorist offenses (Shane, 2004).
The activities of the Department Of Homeland Security however received numerous challenges key among them is the accusation by main police bosses that the FBI was not keen in sharing key relevant information with other agencies that were supposed to coordinate and cooperate with it. The result of unwillingness by the FBI to share some is crucial information with other law enforcement agencies is inability of the police to respond in the right way and quickly depending on the circumstance. Asked why they were failing to cooperate with their colleagues, they claimed that some security information was very crucial to the national security and could not be shared easily with junior officers especially those not under oath. They offered that crucial information could be passed to the president who would then command DHS about what to do. Another challenge the DHS faced was lack of morale among the fire departments and the police because of their call to control anti war protesters. The big challenge of dealing with anti war protests is that the freedom of expression and association is a human right in the US constitution. These protests usually started out as peaceful but later the crowds could turn violent and threaten the security of other people by attacking them physically or looting their businesses. Related agencies of the government were therefore reluctant or unwilling to control such protests. It appeared that law enforcing agencies were rigid to change and therefore unable to work in collaboration with an agency of the government which is mainly composed and led by a civilian public official. In fact two months after its establishment, the organization had not embarked on its mission of actively involving the public in community policing. In fact they had not even worn the government confidence that they were up to the task they were created to do (Braiden, 2006).
The Department responded by calling a National Summit at the FBI headquarters, Department of Justice Officials and Police Executives. The main objective of the summit was to educate major stakeholders about the importance of the community peace building program. In addition, the summit made proposals of the best ways of implementing the community policing program without compromising the activities of other law enforcement agencies. Stakeholders agreed that some information held by the FBI was very crucial and if allowed to be accessed by DHS, they could leak out into dangerous hands and this could compromise the security of the whole country (Johnson, 1990).
The issue of lack of motivation was addressed in the summit. Stakeholders decided that the police and fire department officers were not going to be involved in community policing instead they would continue with their official duties of controlling protests and other activities that threatened peace an security. It was also agreed that police would also initiate and emphasize more of preventative measures to check terrorism and not focus on curative strategies alone. DHS was also advised to put community leaders like businessmen, religious leaders, and local politicians and youth leaders on the frontline in order to gain the goodwill of the people. DHS was advised to focus more on public awareness and leave the task of maintenance of security to government agencies (Johnson, 2006).
Public security is a very crucial issue to all governments and it is a positive observation to realize that the state and federal government gave it the required attention. The leadership intervention by solving the conflict of interest between the FBI and the DHS was also a positive because it addressed the way of collaboration between the two government agencies. By ceasing the involvement of the police in community policing motivated the police and made them to focus on their main duty of maintaining government security. In overall, the governments move to create the DHS was a demonstration that the government was serious about protecting its citizens from the fear created by terrorist activities.
Reference List
Braiden, C. (2006). What community policing is supposed to be, but isn’t. California, San Jose: POP Conference.
Johnson, D. (1990). Community Policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Johnson, D. (1981). American law enforcement: A History. St. Louis: Forum Press.
Eck, J. (2010). Characteristics of drug dealing places. College Park: University of Maryland.
Shane, J (2004). The police in America: an introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Terry, K (2005). Law enforcement in the 21st century. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
